THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Presented  by 
President  Kinley 


1928 


357 

Un39r 


MODERNIZE  ILLINOIS  BANKING  LAWS 


VOTE  YES 

FIRST  COLUMN 
ON  LARGE 
BALLOT 


For  the  proposed  amend- 

YES 

X 

ment  to  Sections  5,  6,  7 

and  8 of  Article  XI  of 

the  Constitution. 

NO 

Strengthen  Our  State  Banking  System 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/reportofsecretar00unit_7 


REPORT 


OF  THE 

SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY 


ON  THE 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


WITH 


ACCOMPANYING  DOCUMENTS. 


FEBRUARY  16,  18S6. 


WASHINGTON: 
GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 
1886. 


Treasury  Department, 
Document  No.  781. 
Secretary. 


/?  2? 


337 

l/t-r'  -r' 


CONTENTS. 


sj 


Preliminary  remarks 

Simplicity  of  Tariff  Laws  from  1789  to  1818 

Laws  regulating  the  collection  of  duties 

Efforts  to  prevent  customs  frauds  after  1818,  and  up  to  1861 

Efforts  to  prevent  presentation  of  false  invoices  after  1861 

Why  have  not  customs  frauds  been  punished? 

New  coercion  laws  nearly  coincident  with  increased  ad  valorem  rates  down  to 

1874 — need  of  simplicity 

Tariff  laws,  and  the  tax  laws  of  New  York 

Senate  Bill  No.  1153 * 

Responsibility  for  seizures 

Pro  forma  invoices 

Reorganization  of  the  appraising  department 

Difficulties  in  reappraisements 

Specific  and  ad  valorem  rates 

Consigned  merchandise 


Appendix : 

A.  — Department  circular : Application  of  Section  9,  Act  of  March  3,  1883, 

to  the  ascertainment  of  foreign  market  values  of  imported  merchan- 
dise   

B. — Statement  of  the  number  and  designation  of  officers  and  employes  in 

the  appraiser’s  office,  port  of  New  York,  with  their  annual  compen- 
sation  


Correspondence : 

Circular  letters  to  merchants  and  manufacturers 

Answers  of  merchants  and  manufacturers  to  Department’s  circular  letters 
of  inquiry 


V 

VIII 

X 

XIV 

XXI 

XXII 

XXV 

XXVII 

XXVIII 

XXX 

XXXI 

XXXIII 

XXXVII 

XXXIX 

XLI 


XLIII 


XLVIII 

LIII 

1 


64 8 5 51 


LETTER 


FROM 


THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY 

IN 


RELATION  TO  A REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


. Treasury  Department, 

February  16,  1886. 

Sir  : In  my  Annual  Report  I alluded  to  an  invitation,  conveyed  u in 
some  2,000  circular  letters  to  our  manufacturers  and  merchants,”  re- 
questing 4 4 their  enlightened  co-operation  in  the  inrprovement  of  our  fiscal 
policy,”  and  I added  that  4 4 the  replies  received  will  hereafter  be  submit- 
ted to  the  consideration  of  Congress.  ’ ’ I have  asked  permission  of  those 
whose  communications  seem  to  throw  light  on  the  subject,  in  a legis- 
lative sense,  and  I transmit,  herewith,  the  opinions  of  the  manufact- 
urers and  merchants  who  have  given  to  me  authority  to  do  so,  together 
with  other  matter  pertinent  to  the  subject. 

My  opinion  in  regard  to  our  existing  Tariff  law  is  clear  and  positive, 
and  is  confirmed  more  and  more  by  every  day’s  widening  experience  in 
the  administration  of  this  Department.  Soon  after  I entered  thereon, 
less  than  a year  ago,  I became  convinced  that  the  investigations  into  the 
conduct  of  the  customs  service  which  had  already  been  begun  by  my 
predecessor,  Mr.  McCulloch,  were  of  pressing  importance,  and  I con- 
tinued them  with  energy.  The  result,  up  to  the  meeting  of  Congress, 
is  contained  in  my  Annual  Report.  Since  that  date,  the  need  of  ad- 
ditional legislation  has,  in  my  appreciation,  become  more  imperative. 

Two  courses  are,  as  I endeavored  to  intimate  in  my  Annual  Report, 
open  to  Congress.  One  is  an  enlargement  of  the  free  list,  a reduction 
of  the  number  of  dutiable  articles,  a prudent  substitution  of  specific  for 
ad  valorem  rates,  and  a thorough  revision  and  change  of  the  existing 
rates  and  systeih.  The  other  is  partially  indicated  by  a recent  Senate 
Bill  (No.  1153)  which  is  now  before  me,  and  is  in  the  direction  of  de- 
terrent legislation  which  shall,  by  more  stringent  rules,  and  new  con- 


VI 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


trivances  in  the  form  of  fines  and  punishments,  so  operate  on  the  fears 
of  importers  as  to  induce  them  to  present  truthful  invoices,  and  make 
on  entry  a correct  declaration  of  the  foreign  value. 

These  two  courses  are  not  necessarily  alternative.  Both  may  be  pur- 
sued together.  But,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  expedient  that  an  attempted 
reduction  and  simplification  of  rates  shall  precede  a revival  of  “ Coer- 
cion Laws”  on  the  subject. 

It  would  be  inconvenient,  if  not  impossible,  for  me  to  fully  set  forth 
all  the  considerations  which  constrain  me  to  this  opinion.  In  the  daily 
supervision  by  the  Head  of  this  Department  of  the  collection  of  the 
customs  revenue  at  one  hundred  and  sixteen  separate  ports,  or  places 
of  entry,  he  naturally,  and  necessarily,  as  I have  discovered,  receives 
very  distinct  impressions  of  what  is  possible,  and  what  is  practically 
impossible  in  administration, — the  causes,  reasons  and  precise  char- 
acter of  which  cannot  be  defined  and  expressed  in  writing,  short  of  a 
stenographic  report  of  all  its  multifarious  daily  business.  A large  part 
of  the  general  facts  and  considerations  which  have  influenced  my  con- 
clusions I endeavored  to  exhibit  in  my  Annual  Report.  The  unwilling- 
ness of  those  who  are  not  customs  officials  to  really  aid,  and  not  em- 
barrass, those  who  are  charged  with  the  execution  of  the  existing  tariff 
law,  is  each  day  most  painfully  impressed  upon  me.  It  is  felt  in  this 
Department,  not  only  when  fines,  or  punishments,  are  to  be  inflicted  for 
acts  of  commission,  or  of  omission,  in  making  entries,  but  also  when 
the  Department  is,  by  reason  of*  an  ambiguity  in  the  statute,  required 
to  decide  between  a higher  and  a lower  rate.  The  indefiniteness  of  the 
language  too  often  used  in  making  commercial  designations,  and  in  pre- 
scribing rates,  encourages  domestic  manufacturers,  on  the  one  side,  and 
importers,  on  the  other  side,  to  press  considerations  on  the  Department, 
in  favor  of  this  policy  or  that  policy,  this  theory  or  that  theory,  suit- 
able enough  for  Congress,  but  altogether  unsuitable  for  an  executive 
officer,  who  is  required  to  ascertain  the  intention  of  the  law-makers,  as 
best  he  may,  from  the  language  finally  sent  to,  and  approved  by,  the 
President.  One  sometimes  is  made  to  feel  that  the  ambiguity  and  con- 
fusion of  the  tariff  statute  were  intentional,  and  that  a controversy  be- 
tween opposing  selfish  interests  which  could  not  be,  or  was  not,  adjusted 
in  the  committee-room  of  either  House,  had  been  transferred,  by  a sort 
of  common  consent,  to  this  Department,  and  to  the  Courts.  The  influ- 
ence of  such  ambiguity  is  especially  seen  and  felt  in  the  appraising  and 
liquidating  departments,  and  is,  I suspect,  at  the  bottom  of  much  of 
the  disorder  which  dishonors  the  customs  revenue  by  the  improper  prac- 
tices and  strife  thus  engendered  at  the  large  ports.  That  ambiguity 
should  be,  first  of  all,  removed  by  a careful  revision  of  the  existing 
laws.  A pertinent  example  of  such  ambiguity  is  in  the  7th  Section 
of  the  Tariff  law  of  1883,  which  has  recently  been  interpreted  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  to  which  in  my  Annual  Report  I asked  the  imme- 
diate attention  of  Congress.  That  section  was  most  carefully  studied 
by  my  learned  predecessor,  Mr.  Folger,  who  as  a member  and  Chief- 
Justice  of  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  had  large  experience  in  the 
examination  of  statutes.  It  was  subsequently  studied  by  the  Attorney- 
General  who  gave  an  elaborate  opinion  to  this  Department.  It  was 
debated  in  New  York  before  Judge  Wallace,  and  interpreted  by  him 
in  an  opinion  from  the  bench.  These  well-trained  executive  and  judi- 
cial officers  substantially  agreed  in  their  conclusions.  But  the  justices 
of  the  Supreme  Court  were  recently  unanimous  in  condemning  as  an 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


VII 


error  what  had  been  decided.  The  section  seems  to  have  been  most 
successfully  drawn  if  ambiguity  was  sought  by  the  draughtsman,  but 
most  unsuccessfully  if  clearness  was  the  object.  I again,  most  ear- 
nestly, commend  the  section  to  the  revision  of  Congress,  aided  by  the 
recent  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  urge  the  announcement  of 
a clear  and  unmistakable  rule  on  the  subject,  under  which  the  business 
of  importation,  and  of  the  liquidating  officers  of  the  custom-houses,  can 
be  safely  carried  on.  The  task  of  applying  the  recent  decision  to  the 
reliquidation  of  old  entries,  where  protests  and  appeals  have  been 
made,  will  be  full  of  perplexity,  doubt,  and  most  inconvenient  re- 
sponsibility, but  such  confusion  and  uncertainty  will,  I hope,  not  be 
allowed  by  Congress  to  long  disturb  future  importations. 

The  opinions  expressed  by  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Bibb,  in  a Circular 
Letter,  dated  August  5th,  1844,  are  most  pertinent  at  this  moment. 
He  said : 

“By  communications  to  this  Department,  it  appears  that  the  im- 
port duties,  as  charged  and  collected  on  articles  of  like  kind  at  the 
several  custom-houses,  are  not  uniform  throughout  the  United  States, 
whereby  like ' articles  of  commerce  imported  into  some  of  the  States, 
whereon  the  duties  are  paid  at  the  lower  rates  there  charged  by  the 
officers  of  the  customs,  can  be,  and  are  transported  to  other  States,  and 
sold  for  less  than  like  articles  can  be  afforded,  when  imported  and  en- 
tered at  the  ports  of  other  States,  where  a higher  rate  of  duty  is  charged. 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ordains,  that  ‘all  duties,  imposts, 
and  excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States’ — ‘No  pre- 
ference shall  be  given  by  any  regulation  of  commerce  or  revenue  to 
the  ports  of  one  State  over  those  of  another.’  The  act  of  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  to  provide  revenue  from  imports,  intends  that  the 
duties  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States.  But  practically, 
and  in  fact,  different  duties  on  like  articles  are  charged  and  collected 
at  different  custom-houses.  By  such  want  of  uniformity  the  Consti- 
tution is  offended,  the  act  of  the  Congress  is  offended,  the  prudent 
schemes  of  merchants,  and  the  due  profits  of  commercial  enterprises 
are  disconcerted,  the  interests  and  conveniences  of  customers  are  inju- 
riously affected.  Justice  due  to  the  officers  of  the  customs  at  the  sev- 
eral ports  of  the  States  requires  me  to  say,  that  in  seeking  to  perform 
their  duties  faithfully,  the  want  of  perspicuity  and  exact  definiteness  in 
the  enactments  of  the  law  has  given  rise  to  their  differences  of  construc- 
tion. The  varieties  of  duties  levied,  in  fact,  at  different  ports  by  the 
respective  officers  of  the  customs,  so  tending  to  incommode  and  baffle 
the  important  operations  of  commerce,  and  to  give  a preference  to  the 
ports  of  one  State  over  those  of  another,  are  subjects  demanding  the 
exercise  of  the  superintending  authority  of  the  Secretary  of  the  De- 
partment of  the  Treasury.  * * * The  sovereign  power  of  taxation 
.is  the  source  from  whence  the  most  widespread  wrongs,  oppressions, 
and  ruin  of  the  people  flow  in  all  governments.  The  safeguard  against 
abuse  of  the  taxing  power  of  government  intended  by  our  Constitution, 
is  in  confiding  that  power  to  the  Congress.  It  would  ill  become  the 
executive  department  to  take  money  from  the  pockets  of  the  people  by 
implication  and  constructive  enlargement  of  the  acts  of  the  legislature. 
When  the  Congress,  in  the  exercise  of  their  power  of  taxation,  have 
not  spoken  expfessly  and  clearly ; when  the  words  of  the  law  leave  room 
for  rational  doubt  as  to  a higher  or  lower  rate  of  taxation,  the  decision 
of  the  executive  officers  should  be  in  favor  of  the  lower  rate.  Iu  so 


VIII 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


doing,  tlie  executive  action  is  certainly  within  the  limit  prescribed  by 
the  law.  To  take  the  highest  rate  of  taxation,  in  such  dubious  cases, 
would  be  hazarding  a supplement  to  the  legislative  will,  and  an  inroad 
into  the  region  of  the  legislative  department.  Such  a mode  of  con- 
struction by  the  executive  department  would  not  be  lenient  and  re- 
medial, but  onerous  and  penal.” 

I hope  I may  be  permitted,  by  way  of  preface  and  explanation  of 
my  views  in  respect  to  tariff  revision,  to  set  forth,  as  briefly  and  clearly 
as  I can,  what,  in  my  appreciation,  is  the  real  condition  of  the  existing 
tariff  system,  and  the  causes,  or  circumstances,  which  have  brought  it 
to  that  condition.  If  there  is  an  evil  therein  to  be  remedied,  a logical 
method  of  procedure  will  be  to  ascertain  definitely  what  the  evil  is,  and 
how  it  has  come  into  existence.  My  own  estimate  of  the  evil,  and  its 
causes,  may  be  at  fault,  and  if  so,  that  fault  will  naturally  infect  my 
suggestions  of  a remedy,  and  my  criticism  of  a remedy  proposed  by 
others. 


SIMPLICITY  OF  TARIFF  LAWS  FROM  1789  TO  1818. 

The  levy  and  collection  of  duties  on  imports  has  come  to  be  extremely 
artificial  and  technical.  It  was  not  so  in  the  beginning.  By  all  the 
earlier  Collection  Laws,  and  down  to  1818,  the  invoice  to  be  presented 
on  an  entry  was  to  contain  “the  prime  net  cost,”  at  the  place  of  ex- 
portation, meaning  thereby  the  actual  price  paid  in  money,  and  not  the 
market  value  if  the  two  were  unlike.  There  was  no  special  provision 
for  an  invoice  of  merchandise  obtained  by  gift,  or  in  part  by  money 
and  in  part  by  gift,  or  for  merchandise  consigned  hither  by  a manu- 
facturer. Up  to  1818  the  punishment  for  an  intent,  and  an  attempt, 
to  evade  the  payment  of  duty  known  to  be  legally  chargeable,  was  con- 
fiscation for  either  one  of  three  defined  offences.  One  was  the  presen- 
tation of  an  invoice  which  intentionally  did  not  display  the  actual  cost. 
Another  was  the  intentional  entry  of  packages  by  a false  denomination, 
or  description,  in  order  to  defraud  the  revenue.  The  third  was  the 
concealment  of  any  merchandise  on  a vessel,  or  elsewhere,  (such  as  not 
putting  it  on  the  manifest, ) in  order  to  evade  payment  of  duties,  or  the 
landing  without  a permit,  which  was  the  offence  of  smuggling.  It 
should  also  be  kept  in  mind  that  up  to  1818  the  Collectors  of  Customs 
levied  ad  valorenj  rates' on  the  invoice  value  unless  they  had  reason  to 
suspect  a fraud  in  the  invoice.  There  was  no  appraising  staff.  When 
an  invoice  value  was  suspected,  two  merchants  were  selected  to  ap- 
praise the  merchandise.  From  then  till  now,  there  have  been,  side  by 
side,  two  classes  of  tariff  legislation ; one  class  prescribing  the  rates  to 
be  levied,  and  one  class  providing  the  machinery  for  enforcing  and  levy- 
ing the  rates.  The  work  of  enacting  a law  of  the  first  class  was  entered 
upon  in  1789,  on  the  motion  of  Madison,  even  before  the  President  had 
been  inaugurated,  so  empty  was  the  new  treasury.  In  the  resolution  in- 
troduced by  him,  proposing  a temporary  system  of  imposts,  the  rates  seem 
to  be  about  equally  divided  between  specific  and  ad  valorem.  In  the 
law  as  finally  enacted  some  twenty  of  the  specifications  were  specific 
rates  and  fifteen  ad  valorem  rates.  The  debate  which  arose  thereon 
in  the  House  foreshadowed,  and  indeed  developed,  the  conflict  of  eco- 
nomic and  constitutional  opinions,  which  has  been  so  prominent  in 
more  recent  politics,  excepting  only  the  question  of  constitutional  power 
in  Congress  to  levy  duties  on  imports  for  the  sole  purpose  of  protecting, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


IX 


or  aiding,  a particular  industry  which  appears  not  then  to  have  been 
seriously  mooted.  The  argument,  that  smugglers  marked  the  line  be- 
yond which  rates  could  not  be  carried,  was  earnestly  pressed.  In  this 
early  day  trauds  on  the  revenue  by  false  invoices,  and  by  undervalua- 
tions on  appraisements,  had  not  been  developed  into  the  cunning  art 
that  it  has  since  become.  In  1790,  the  rates  were  revised  and  increased, 
but  preserving,,  so  far  as  can  now  be  ascertained,  much  the  same  rela- 
tion between  specific  and  ad  valorem.  Gerry,  Sedgwick  and  Ames 
renewed  a presentation  of  the  danger  from  smugglers,  which  Sherman 
characterized  “ as  an  insulting  imputation  on  the  American  mercan- 
tile character,77  and  warned  his  colleagues  to  take  care  lest,  by  suggest- 
ing the  probability  of  smuggling,  they  encouraged  it.  As  a safeguard, 
however,  the  Collection  Act  was  re-enforced  by  new  and  more  stringent 
provisions.  In  1797  the  Federal  treasury  needed  an  additional  sum 
of  $1,229,000  a year.  The  average  rate  then  levied  on  all  imports  was 
16  per  cent.  A resolution  passed  the  House  to  raise  the  money  by  a 
direct  tax  on  lands,  houses  and  slaves,  but  a bill  to  that  end  was 
finally  defeated,  and  on  the  suggestion  of  one  of  my  predecessors  in 
this  Department,  Mr.  Wolcott,  additional  rates  on  imports  were  levied, 
preserving  about  the  same  relation,  as  I infer,  between  specific  and  ad 
valorem.  In  1801,  one  of  the  most  illustrious  of  my  predecessors,  Mr. 
Gallatin,  said  to  Congress : 

“ Without  any  view  to  an  increase  of  revenue,  but  in  order  to  guard 
as  far  as  possible  against  the  value  of  goods  being  underrated  in  the  in- 
voices, it  would  be  eligible  to  lay  specific  duties  on  all  such  articles,  now 
paying  duties  ad  valorem,  as  may  be  susceptible  of  that  alteration.77 

From  this  date  o>f  1801  to  the  tariff  law  of  April  27,  1816,  there  was 
no  legislation  which  can  pertinently  illustrate  for  us  to-day  the  proper 
relation  of  specific  to  ad  valorem  rates,  or  what  shall  be  done  now  to 
prevent  revenue  frauds.  Down  to  1807  the  growth  of  American  man- 
ufactures was  very  slow.  Our  capital  was  richly  rewarded  on  the  sea, 
and  there  it  remained.  But  in  that  year  two  new  and  powerful  in- 
fluences supervened,  which  were  the  violation  of  our  neutral  rights  by 
the  armed  belligerents,  England  and  France,  and  the  commercial  re- 
strictions inflicted  on  ourselves.  Those  causes  largely  expelled  our 
capital  from  the  sea  and  kept  out  foreign  fabrics.  Manufactures  natur- 
ally started  with  a bound.  It  was  the  era  of  Berlin  and  Milan  Decrees, 
of  Orders  in  Council,  of  Embargo,  of  Non-Intervention  Acts,  and 
finally  of  war  for  “Free  Trade  and  Sailors7  Bights.77 

The  results  of  the  war,  the  condition  of  the  country,  and  the  recep- 
tion of  large  quantities  of  the  accumulated  products  of  British  manu- 
facture sold  at  auction  prices  in  our  cities,  called  into  being  the  decid- 
edly protective  tariffs  of  1824  and  1828,  and  increased  the  use  of  ad 
valorem  rates.  Then  came  the  tariff  of  1832,  the  “compromise77  of 
1833,  the  protective  tariff  of  1842,  the  revenue  ad  valorem  tariffs  of 
1846  and  1857,  and,  finally,  the  civil  war  legislation  on  the  tariff 
which  began  in  1861  and  has  continued  till  to-day.  What  the  rela- 
tion was  between  specific  and  ad  valorem  rates  in  the  tariff  laws  of 
1816,  1818,  1824,  1828  and  1832  can  be  seen  at  a glance  by  consulting 
a comparative  tabular  statement  transmitted  to  the  House  of  Bepresent- 
atives  by  my  predecessor,  Mr.  McLane,  on  February  8,  1833. 


X 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


LAWS  REGULATING  THE  COLLECTION  OF  DUTIES. 

From  April  27,  1816,  down  to  the  outbreak  of  war  in  1861,  there 
were  eleven  prominent  enactments  levying  rates  of  duty,  approved 
respectively,  on  April  20,  1818,  April  18,  1820,  May  22,  1824,  May  19, 
1828,  May  20,  1830,  July  14,  1832,  Match  2,  1833,  September  11,  i.841, 
August  30,  1842,  July  30,  1846,  and  March  3,  1856. 

There  were,  during  the  same  period,  eleven  or  more  enactments  reg- 
ulating the  collection  of  duties,  some  of  them  punishing  frauds,  ap- 
proved, respectively,  March  3,  1817,  April  20.  1818,  March  1,  1823. 
May  19,  1828,  May  28,  1830,  July  14,  1832,  August  30,  1842,  July  3(fi 
1846,  August  6,  1846,  March  3,  1851,  and  March  3,  1857. 

1818. — After  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  law  of  April  27. 1816,  which 
levied  ad  valorem  rates  that  were  exceedingly  low  in  comparison  with 
those  levied  to-day,  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  February  28, 1817, 
directed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  report  to  Congress  at  their  next 
session  “such  measures  as  maybe  necessary  for  the  more  effectual  ex- 
ecution of  the  laws  for  the  collection  “of  the  duties  on  imported  goods, 
wares  and  merchandise.7’  Under  this  law  of  1816  only  fifteen  per  cent, 
ad  valorem  was  levied  on  linen  and  silk  bindings,  on  blankets,  bleached 
linens,  bunting,  burlaps,  cambric  linen  and  cambric  handkerchiefs,  and 
cashmere  shawls ; only  twenty  per  cent,  was  levied  on  manufactures  of 
copper,  on  cutlery,  glassware,  all  manufactures  of  hemp,  woollen, 
worsted  or  cotton  hosiery,  all  manufactures  of  iron,  and  screws  ; only 
twenty-five  per  cent,  on  carpets  and  carpeting,  manufactures  of  cotton 
of  all  descriptions,  flannels,  and  manufactures  of  wool ; and  only  thirty 
per  cent,  on  brushes  of  all  kinds,  cabinet- wares,  carriages,  ready-made 
clothing  of  all  kinds,  hats  and  bonnets,  and  all  manufactures  of  leather. 

On  January  18,  1818,  my  very  able  and  distinguished  predecessor, 
Mr.  Crawford,  made  an  elaborate  report,  which  was  printed  in  Execu- 
tive Document  No.  58,  First  Session,  Fifteenth  Congress.  Immediately 
after  the  resolution  of  the  House  had  been  sent  to  him  he  addressed  on 
May  7,  1817,  a circular  letter  to  collectors  of  customs,  saying  to  them 
that  a general  impression  appeared  to  prevail  that  frauds  of  a glaring 
nature  were  frequently  committed  upon  the  revenue,  especially  in  im- 
portations upon  consignments,  and  requesting  them  to  communicate  to 
him  every  circumstance  tending  to  show  the  evasion  of  the  provisions 
of  the  existing  laws,  accompanied  by  suggestions  of  ways  and  means  to 
repress  the  evil.  The  Secretary  in  his  report  informs  Congress  that 
the  Collectors  of  Customs  “made  no  communication  upon  the  subject;77 
but,  in  spite  of  what  he  describes  as  “the  tacit  evidence  that  the 
provisions  of  the  Collection  Laws  are  not  materially  defective,77  he 
nevertheless  states  that  in  his  opinion,  “notwithstanding  the  result 
of  these  experiments,  there  is  just  reason  to  believe  that  frauds  to 
a considerable  extent  have  been  and  are  now  committed  upon  the  rev- 
enue in  the  importation  of  articles  upon  consignments  paying  ad 
valorem  duties.77  Mr.  Crawford  then  proceeds  in  this  report  to  make 
declarations  to  Congress  in  respect  to  evasions  of  the  customs  law, 
which  well  describe  the  conditions  under  which  importations  are,  by 
so  many  intelligent  observers,  believed  to  be  made  in  the  present  year 
of  1886.  He  says : 

“The  practice  of  shipping  merchandise  from  Europe  to  the  United 
States  on  account  of  the  foreign  shipper  has  greatly  increased  since  the 
late  peace.  The  immediate  cause  of  this  increase  may  be  probably 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XI 


found  in  the  general  distress  which  at,  and  since  that  epoch,  pervaded 
universally  the  manufacturing  establishments,  from  whence  our  supply 
of  foreign  merchandise  has  been  principally  derived.  The  manufact- 
urers unable  to  dispose  of  the  products  of  their  labor  in  their  accustomed 
markets,  assumed  the  character  of  exporting  merchants,  and  shipped 
their  merchandise  directly  to  the  United  States,  where  it  has  been  sold 
by  their  agents  or  consignees.  In  adopting  this  course,  not  only  the 
fair  profit  of  the  manufacturer  and  exporting  merchant  is  concentrated 
in  the  hands  of  the  latter,  but  also  the  loss  which  the  revenue  sustains 
by  invoicing  the  merchandise  at  the  actual  cost  of  the  raw  material 
and  the  price  of  the  labor  employed  in  its  manufacture.  Should  any 
part  of  this  profit  not  be  realized,  from  the  circumstances  of  the  mer- 
chandise being  sold  in  a glutted  market,  or  from  any  other  cause,  the 
articles  reached  the  hands  of  the  consumer  at  a rate  lower  than  it 
could  be  sold  by  the  fair  American  importer.  In  either  event  the 
honest  American  merchant  is  driven  from  the  competition,  and4in  the 
latter,  the  domestic  manufacture  is  deprived  of  the  protection  which 
was  intended  to  be  secured  by  the  legislature. 

4 4 But,  independent  of  this  evasion  of  the  revenue  laws,  which,  by 
those  who  practice  it,  may  be  deemed  consistent  with  the  principles  of 
morality,  a practice  of  a less  equivocal  character  is  known  to  exist  in 
importations,  made  by  foreign  merchants  upon  consignment.  There  is 
abundant  reason  to  believe,  that  it  is  now  customary  in  importations  of 
this  nature,  to  send  with  the  merchandise,  an  invoice  considerably 
below  the  actual  cost,  by  which  the  entry  is  made  and  the  duties 
secured.  Another  invoice  at,  or  above,  the  actual  cost,  is  forwarded 
to  a different  person,  with  instructions  to  take  and  sell  the  goods  by 
such  invoice.  In  this  manner  the  person  who  enters  the  goods  remains 
ignorant  of  the  fraud  to  which  he  has  been  innocently  made  a party, 
and  the  fraudulent  importer  escapes  with  impunity.  The  facility  with 
which  frauds  may  be  practiced  by  permitting  entries  to  be  made  by 
persons  who  know  nothing  of  the  correctness  of  the  invoices  by  which 
the  duties  are  to  be  ascertained,  so  strongly  invites  to  the  substitu- 
tion of  false,  for  true  invoices,  that  the  practice  must  necessarily  become 
universal,  if  suitable  checks  are  not  devised  against  it. 

4 4 It  is  also  ascertained  that  resident  merchants  have  in  some  instances 
connected  themselves  with  foreign  mercantile  houses,  which  are  in  the 
habit  of  purchasing  cloths  of  every  description  in  their  rudest  state  of 
manufacture,  which  are  in  their  hands  brought  to  the  highest  state  of 
perfection  by  dyeing,  dressing,  or  bleaching,  according  to  the  kind 
of  cloth  purchased.  Such  articles  are  invoiced  at  the  price  given  for 
them  in  their  unfinished  state  of  manufacture,  and  upon  those  invoices 
the  duties  are  estimated.  Connections  of  this  kind  will  necessarily  in- 
crease, and  eventually  embrace  the  whole  catalogue  of  articles  paying 
ad  valorem  duties,  unless  checks  calculated  to  repress  the  evil,  are 
promptly  devised  and  a})plied. 

4 4 The  practice  of  entering  goods  without  invoice  is  another  mode  now 
frequently  resorted  to,  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the  payment  of  the 
duties  which  are  legally  demandable  upon  them.  In  these  cases,  and 
indeed  in  all  cases,  where  the  collector  shall  suspect  that  the  invoices 
are  fraudulent,  the  resort  to  appraisement  authorized  by  law  is  generally 
found  to  be  in  favor  of  the  importer , and  against  the  Government.  This 
may,  in  some  measure,  be  attributable  to  the  defect  of  the  existing  provis- 
ions upon  that  subject,  but  the  universal  experience  of  every  department 


XII 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


of  the  Government  proves  the  danger  there  is  of  submitting  any  ques- 
tion to  the  decision  of  persons  acting  as  arbitrators  between  the  United 
States  and  individuals.  In  most  cases  of  this  kind  the  appraisers  are 
influenced  by  a morbid  sensibility  which  almost  invariably  impels  them 
to  sacrifice  the  interest  of  the  nation  to  that  of  the  individual.  Inde- 
pendent, however,  of  this  indefensible  principle  of  action,  there  must 
necessarily  exist  in  most  cases  of  appraisement  under  the  collection 
laws,  some  individual  bias  in  favor  of  the  importer.  The  decision  is 
to  be  made  by  merchants,  and  if  made  in  favor  of  the  Government,  the 
reputation  of  the  party  in  interest  must  be  seriously  affected.  The 
persons  called  upon  to  decide  may  themselves  be  placed  the  next  day 
in  a situation  to  have  their  reputation  assailed  by  the  same  means. 
The  great  body  of  the  merchants  may  in  the  question  under  con- 
sideration be  viewed  as  a distinct  community,  bound  together  by  ties 
generally  inscrutable  to  the  collector ; performing  successively  for  each 
other,  .acts  by  which  their  pecuniary  interests  oftentimes  acquire  a unity, 
totally  incompatible  with  the  disinterested  discharge  of  the  duties  of  au 
appraiser.  Should,  however,  the  appraisement,  in  despite  of  all  these 
obstacles,  correspond  with  the  impressions  of  the  collector,  and  seizure  of 
the  merchandise  be' made,  the  party  is  allowed  to  prove  the  actual  cost  of 
the  articles,  and  time  is  generally  allowed  by  our  courts,  for  the  examina- 
tion of  witnesses  beyond  the  seas.  The  result  of  an  investigation  under 
such  circumstances  can  hardly  be  considered  doubtful.  In  making 
these  observations,  no  imputation  upon  the  character  of  the  American 
merchant  is  intended.  As  a body  of  men  they  are  highly  respectable 
for  their  intelligence,  integrity  and  respect  for  the  laws.  So  far  as 
they  are  directly  concerned  in  importations,  I believe  with  the  collec- 
tors of  the  customs  that  the  revenue  has  been  generally  fairly  paid. 
But  it  is  impossible  that  the  high  character  which  the}^  have  hitherto 
maintained  should  be  preserved  against  the  ruinous  competition  in 
which  they  have,  since  the  peace,  been  engaged,  unless  the  frauds  prac- 
tised by  the  foreign  importer  shall  be  effectually  restrained.  Indeed, 
there  is  some  reason  to  believe,  that  some  among  them  have  already  re- 
sorted to  practices,  more  effectual  for  evading  the  payment  of  duties 
justly  demandable  of  them,  than  those  which  have  been,  with  so  much 
success,  employed  by  foreign  importers.  It  has  frequently  happened 
that  a vessel  bound  to  a particular  port  is  freighted  by  merchants  re- 
siding in  the  principal  commercial  cities.  In  such  cases  the  goods  have 
generally  been  entered  by  an  agent  or  consignee,  residing  in  the  port 
where  the  vessel  arrives,  and  the  goods  so  entered  are  reshipped  in  their 
original  packages  to  the  ports  where  the  owners  severally  reside,  or  to 
other  ports  of  the  U nited  States.  The  entries  are  consequently  made  upon 
such  i n voices  as  are  forwarded  to  the  agent  or  consignee,  of  tike  correctness 
of  which  he  is  wholly  ignorant.  The  goods  thus  reshipped  in  the  origi- 
nal packages,  having  undergone  no  examination,  are  not  subjected  at 
the  port  to  which  they  are  reshipped  to  that  kind  of  examination  which 
they  would  have  undergone  had  they  arrived  directly  from  a foreign 
port.  The  importer,  therefore,  not  only  avoids  the  necessity  of  swear- 
ing to  the  correctness  of  the  invoices,  but  also  eludes  the  vigilance  of 
the  custom-house,  as  his  merchandise,  at  the  port  where  it  is  opened  and 
sold,  has  acquired  the  character  of  articles  upon  which  the  duties  have 
been  paid  or  secured.  Cases  of  this  kind  have  so  greatly  increased  since 
the  war,  that  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  ascribing  the  increase  in  some  de- 
gree to  motives  incompatible  with  the  high  character  for  integrity,  and 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XIII 


respect  for  the  laws,  which  the  American  merchants  as  a body  have  so 
justly  acquired. 

1 ‘There  is  some  reason  to  believe  that  evasions  are  sometimes  practised 
under  the  color  of  discounts  allowed  on  the  prices  charged  in  the  in- 
voices. Under  the  Treasury  regulations  no  conditional  discounts  are 
allowed  ; but  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  ascertain  whether  they  are 
absolute  or  unconditional. 

1 k In  order  to  provide  an  adequate  remedy  against  the  frauds  and  eva- 
sions whi  ch  already  exist,  and  to  prevent  their  further  increase,  it  is  re- 
spectfully submitted  that  provisions  to  the  following  effect  be  adopted.  ” 

Whereupon  Mr.  Crawford  submitted  to  Congress  twenty-four  amend- 
ments to  the  law  then  existing  and  regulating  the  collection  of  duties, 
nearly  all  of  which  were  embodied  in  the  act  of  1818.  The  ninth  and 
tenth  suggested  amendments  were  these  : 

“9.  In  all  cases  where  there  shall  be  just  grounds  to  suspect  that 
goods  paying  ad  valorem  duties,  have  been  invoiced  below  their  actual 
costs,  the  collector  shall  order  them  to  be  appraised  in  the  manner  already 

described ; if  the  appraisement  shall  exceed  by per  cent,  the  invoice 

prices,  then,  in  addition  to  the per  cent,  laid  upon  correct  and 

regular  invoices  by  the  existing  laws,  there  shall  be  added per 

cent,  upon  the  appraised  value,  upon  which  aggregate  amount  the  duties 
shall  be  estimated. 

“10.  One-half  the  duties  accruing  upon  such  additional  ten  per  cent, 
shall  be  distributed  according  to  law  between  the  custom-house  officers 
of  the  port.’7 

In  addition  to  these  twenty-four  suggestions,  a great  part  of  which 
now,  together  with  the  law  of  1799,  constitutes  the  framework  of  the 
machinery  for  the  collection  of  duties,  Mr.  Crawford  advised  Congress 
that : 

“Whatever  may  be  the  reliance  which  ought  to  be  placed  in  the 
efficacy  of  the  foregoing  provisions,  it  is  certainly  prudent  to  diminish, 
as  far  as  practicable,  the  list  of  articles  paying  ad  valorem  duties. 
The  best  examination  which  circumstances  have  permitted,  has  resulted 
in  the  conviction  that  the  following  list  of  articles  now  paying  ad  va- 
lorem duties  may  be  subjected  to  specific  duties.” 

Mr.  Crawford  specifies  over  one  hundred  articles,  the  list  of  which  is 
printed  in  his  report,  whereon  he  advised  that  the  rates  be  changed 
from  ad  valorem  to  specific. 

As  to  the  invoice : The  law  of  1818  forbade  the  admission  to  entry  of 
any  foreign  merchandise,  subject  to  ad  valorem  rates,  excepting  when 
from  a wreck,  if  “the  original  invoice  thereof”  shall  not  be  presented, 
unless  the  Head  of  the  Department  assented,  and  provided  that  on  entry 
the  name  of  the  real  owner  shall  be  declared,  and  an  oath  taken  that  the 
invoice  exhibits  the  “true  value,”  in  the  actual  condition  of  the  mer- 
chandise and  the  true  value  at  the  place  from  which  brought  hither. 
Nothing  was  said  of  date.  If  the  owner  was  the  manufacturer,  he  must 
swear  that  the  invoice  price  is  “the  current  value  at  the  place  of  man- 
ufacture,” (no  allusion  to  date,)  “and  such  as  he  would  have  received 
if  the  same  had  been  there  sold  in  the  usual  course  of  trade.” 

As  to  appraisement : Two  official  appraisers  were  authorized  at  each 
of  six  ports,  who,  with  a resident  merchant  chosen  by  the  importer, 
should  appraise  all  ad  valorem  merchandise  suspected  by  the  collector 
to  be  under-invoiced,  and,  if  the  appraised  value  exceeded  by  twenty- 


XIV 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


five  per  cent,  the  invoiced  value,  then  fifty  per  cent,  should  be  added  to 
the  appraised  value,  and  one-half  of  the  duty  caused  by  the  increase 
should  be  divided  among  the  three  chief  officers  of  the  port.  But  if  the 
appraisal  should  be  less  than  the  invoice  value,  the  rates  should,  neverthe- 
less, be  levied  on  the  invoice  value. 

In  this  enactment  is  to  be  seen  the  germ  of  many  of  the  exist- 
ing intricate  and  complicated  contrivances  to  baffle  frauds.  It  re- 
quired one  package  of  every  invoice  to  be  opened,  (which  was  a new 
requirement,)  and  also  one  of  every  fifty,  and  if  found  not  to  correspond 
with,  or  to  be  falsely  charged  in  the  invoice,  then  a full  inspection  of 
every  package,  and  if  in  any  package  should  be  found  an  article  hot 
described  in  the  invoice  then  that  package  should  be  confiscated.  No 
new  penalties  were  inflicted  in  1818  for,  or  new  definitions  made  of, 
false  invoices.  The  law-makers  chiefly  confined  their  efforts  to  ap- 
praisements, and  to  increase  of  dutiable  value  if  there  was  under- 
invoicing. 

EFFORTS  TO  PREVENT  CUSTOMS  FRAUDS  AFTER  1818  AND  UP  TO  1861. 

1823. — The  law  of  1823  formulated  two  oaths, — one  for  purchased  and 
another  for  consigned  goods ; required  the  manufacturers  to  swear  to 
“fair  market  value’7  at  time , and  place,  of  procurement ; declared  that 
the  first  ajjpraisal  shall  be  by  official  appraisers,  and  a rea^praisement, 
if  called  for,  shall  be  by  them,  associated  with  two  merchants  employed 
by  the  importer,  with  right  of  an  appeal  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury if  desired,  but  added  that  the  duty  shall,  in  no  case,  be  levied  on 
less  than  the  invoice  value.  The  13th  Section  substantially  repeated 
the  requirement,  which  had  been  previously  enacted  in  1818,  that,  if 
the  appraised  value  exceeded  by  twenty -five  per  centum  the  invoice 
prices  thereof  then  there  should  be  added  fifty  per  centum  to  the  ap- 
praised value,  on  which  aggregate  amount  the  duties  should  be  esti- 
mated. 

1828. — At  the  end  of  the  tariff  law  of  1828  there  were  inserted  new 
regulations  for  appraisals,  and  especially  of  merchandise  unfinished  in 
manufacture.  In  the  ninth  section,  the  rule,  prescribed  in  1818,  which 
directed  that  if  the  appraised  value  exceeded  by  twenty -five  per  cent, 
the  invoiced  price,  there  should  be  added  fifty  per  cent,  to  the  ap- 
praised value,  in  order  to  make  dutiable  value,  was  changed,  so  that  if 
the  appraised  value  exceeded  by  ten  per  cent,  the  invoice  value,  then, 
in  addition  to  the  regular  duty  to  be  imposed  if  the  merchandise  had 
been  invoiced  at  its  real  value,  “there  shall  be  levied  fifty  per  cent,  of 
the  duty  to  be  imposed  when  fairly  invoiced.77 

1830. — In  1830  the  appraising  force  in  New  York,  Philadelphia  and 
Boston  was  enlarged  ; power  was  given  to  the  collector  to  order  a reap- 
praisement if  he  “ shall  deem  any  appraisement  of  goods  too  low, 7 7 which 
last  was  then  a new  power.  In  the  third  section,  a new  and  special  con- 
trivance was  made  for  goods  “of  which  wool  or  cotton  shall  be  a com- 
ponent part,77  and  when  fabrics  “of  similar  kind  but  different  quality 
are  found  in  the  same  package,77  which  was  repealed  in  1832,  and  is 
in  section  2911  of  the  Revised  Statutes.  The  appraisers  were  required 
to  adopt  the  value  of  the  best  article  in  the  package  as  the  average 
value  of  the  whole.  The  fourth  section  of  this  law  made  a new  departure 
in  requiring  collectors  to  cause  one  package  out  of  every  invoice,  and 
one  package  at  least  out  of  every  twenty  packages  of  each  invoice,  and 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XV 


a greater  number  should  he  deem  it  necessary,  (it  is  repeated  in  a modi- 
fied form  in  Section  2899,  Revised  Statutes,)  which  packages  shall  be 
designated  by  him,  to  be  opened  and  examined,  and  if  the  same  should 
be  found  not  to  correspond  with  the  invoice,  or  to  be  falsely  charged  in 
such  invoice,  then  all  the  packages  contained  in  the  same  entry  must 
be  inspected;  and  if  any  “ invoice  be  made  up  with  intent,  by  a false 
valuation,  or  extension,  or  otherwise,  to  evade  or  defraud  the  revenue, 
the  same  shall  be  forfeited. 7 ’ This  forfeiture  provision,  it  will  be  seen, 
applied  to  an  invoice  of  consigned  goods,  as  well  as  to  an  invoice  of 
purchased  goods,  and  declared  that  if  the  invoice  be  intentionally  made 
by  any  device  whatsoever  to  evade  the  revenue,  all  the  merchandise 
contained  therein  shall  be  confiscated.  But  this  law  of  1830  repealed 
the  previous  laws  of  1818  and  1823,  and  every  other  law,  which  imposed 
an  additional  duty,  or  penalty,  of  fifty  per  centum,  upon  duties  on  any 
goods  which  might  be  appraised  at  twenty-five  per  centum  above  their 
invoice  price. 

1832.  — The  tariff  law  of  July  14,  1832,  after  much  alteration  of  the 
rates  of  duty,  devoted  a dozen  more  sections  to  a modification  of  the 
then-existing  system  of  collecting  those  rates.  Among  the  more  im- 
portant of  the  new  executive  powers  conferred  is  that  contained  in  the 
eighth  section  authorizing  the  appraisers  to  call  any  person  before  them 
and  answer  questions  which  the  appraiser  may  deem  material  in  ascer- 
taining the  value  of  imported  merchandise,  and  also  requiring  an  im- 
porter to  produce  any  ‘‘letters,  accounts,  or  invoices  in  his  possession 
relating  to  the  same,”  and  forfeiting  the  merchandise  if  such  owner, 
importer  or  consignee  shall  swear  falsely.  This  provision  was  enlarged, 
by  the  law  of  1842,  and,  as  then  enacted,  is  embodied  in  sections  2922, 
2923,  and  2924  of  the  Revised  Statutes.  The  power  conferred  by  these 
sections  in  the  Revised  Statutes  upon  all  appraising  officers,  including 
the  Collector  and  Naval  Officer,  to  call  witnesses  before  them  in  order 
to  ascertain  market  value,  and  to  require  the  production  “of  any  let- 
ters, accounts  or  invoices”  relating  to  the  same,  is  very  large.  It 
applies  to  every  class  of  importations,  goods  purchased  or  not  pur- 
chased. What  questions  shall  be  asked  is  wholly  within  the  discretion 
of  the  Appraiser  or  the  Collector  or  Naval  Officer,  as  the  case  may  be. 
If  any  person  called  as  a witness  be  not  the  owner,  importer  or  con- 
signee of  the  merchandise,  and  he  refuse  to  answer  any  question,  the 
law  inflicts  a penalty  of  one  hundred  dollars  for  each  refusal.  If  the 
person  interrogated  be  the  owner,  importer  or  consignee,  and  if  he  refuse 
to  answer  any  question  put  to  him,  or  to  produce  “any  letters,  accounts 
or  invoices  in  his  possession,”  that  may  be  called  for,  the  appraisal 
made  is  final  and  conclusive  and  there  can  be  no  reappraisement ; and 
if  the  answer  be  wilfully  and  corruptly  false  the  merchandise  shall  be 
forfeited.  I am  at  a loss  to  know  why  these  sections  have  not  been  and 
are  not  now  more  frequently  enforced  in  New  York,  and  1 would 
respectfully  commend  an  inquiry  into  the  reason  to  those  members  of 
either  House  of  Congress  who  have  in  years  past  been  familiar  with 
the  administration  of  this  Department. 

1833.  — The  origin  and  history  of  the  tariff  legislation  of  March  2, 
1833,  teach  a lesson  which  may  I think  be  serviceable  to  day.  That  law 
was,  as  I assume,  a compromise  between  the  contentions  of  the  manu- 
facturing and  the  non-manufacturing  interests  of  1833,  which  conten- 
tions had  engendered  and  inflamed  alarming  sectional  passions.  By  it 
was  ordained  a ratable  annual  reduction  of  the  rates  prescribed  in  1832, 


XVI 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


whenever  those  rates  exceeded  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  which  reduc- 
tion was  to  begin  on  December  31,  1833,  and  continue  without  pause 
till  June  30,  1842,  when  all  rates  were  to  be  reduced  to  not  more  than 
20  per  cent.  It  directed  that,  after  June  30,  1842,  (1)  “all  duties  shall 
be  collected  in  cash  and  all  credits  be  abolished,  ’ ’ and  (2)  “ that  the  duties 
thereafter  laid  shall  only  be  such  as  may  be  needed  for  an  1 economical 
administration , ? ’ ’ and  (3)  that 1 L all  rates  shall  be  ad  valorem,  but  levied  on 
the  value  ‘ at  the  port  where  the  goods  shall  be  entered.  ’ ? ’ On  Septem- 
ber 11,  1841,  Congress  was,  by  the  condition  of  the  Treasury,  compelled 
to  levy  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  articles  then  free,  or  paying  less 
than  20  per  cent.,  and  on  August  30,  1842,  came  the  general  tariff  law 
of  that  date  which  entirely  disregarded  the  pledges  of  what  might  be 
deemed  a permanent  compromise  made  in  1833.  A system  of  levying 
ad  valorem  rates  on  uhome  values’7  was  thus  in  force  from  June  30, 
1842,  to  August  30,  1842,  as  the  Supreme  Court  decided,  in  Aldridge  vs. 
Williams , (3  Howard,  23,)  Mr.  Justice  McLean  dissenting,  and  insisting 
that  there  was  no  law,  or  lawful  machinery,  between  June  and  Septem- 
ber, for  ascertaining  “home  values.”  The  records  of  this  Department, 
especially  the  circular  letters  and  reports  of  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Levi 
Woodbury,  show,  during  the  last  years  of  the  life  of  the  “Compromise” 
arrangement  of  1833,  Avhen  the  average  rates  were  approaching,  or  had 
reached,  the  limit  of  20  per  centum,  that  LJse  invoices,  undervalua- 
tions, and  the  nameless  and  numberless  devices  to  circumvent,  baffle 
and  defraud  the  Treasury,  when  attempting  to  apply  an  ad  valorem 
system,  were  in  lively  and  successful  operation.  Much  the  same  things 
were  said  and  done  then  about  customs  frauds,  in  and  out  of  Congress, 
by  manufacturers  and  importers,  their  agents  and  representatives,  as 
are  done  and  said  now  in  1886,  so  uniform  are  recurrent  events  in  the 
life  of  a government  as  of  individuals,  and  so  small  in  circumference 
are  the  circles  of  human  transactions. 

The  tariff  law  of  1842  was  approved  by  the  President  in  August  of 
that  year.  In  the  previous  February,  Mr.  Millard  Fillmore,  then  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  in  the  House,  sent  to  my 
predecessor,  Mr.  Forward,  the  following  communication : 

“Committee-Room  of  Ways  and  Means, 

1 L February  26,  1842. 

“Sir:  I am  instructed  by  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  to  re- 
quest you  to  communicate  to  them  any  plan  which  you  may  have  for 
raising  the  necessary  amount  of  revenue  for  defraying  the  expenses  of 
Government,  by  an  increase  of  duties  on  importations,  or  by  auction 
duties  on  goods  imported,  or  otherwise ; also  any  plan,  or  view,  which 
you  may  have  on  .the  subject  of  home  valuation,  cash  duties,  a ware- 
housing system,  or  any  other  matters  incidentally  connected  with  these 
subjects,  and,  especially,  any  information  which  can  be  afforded  by 
your  Department  as  to  the  particular  article  imported  which  will  best 
bear  an  increase  of  duty,  and  the  amount  of  such  increase. 

“As  the  Committee  are  now  ready  to  take  this  subject  under  con- 
sideration, they  would  be  happy  to  receive  your  views  at  as  early  a 
day  as  possible.” 

A month  later  the  House  of  Representatives  by  resolution  required 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  communicate  to  the  House  “the  plans, 
views  and  information  and  matters  called  for,”  in  the  foregoing  letter. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XVII 


On  May  9,  1842,  Mr.  Forward  made  an  elaborate  report,  portions  of 
Avhich  are  pertinent  to-day. 

He  declined  to  express  an  opinion  on  the  proposition  to  tax  “sales  at 
auction  of  goods  imported, 7 7 with  a view  to  increase  the  revenue.  That 
form  of  tax  was  evidently  aimed  at  foreign  manufacturers,  and  intended 
to  impede  consignment  of  their  products  to  this  country.  He  insisted 
that  the  scheme  of  “home  valuation77  was  impracticable.  He  advised 
a continuation  of  ad  valorem  rates,  guarding  them  “from  abuse  by  ad- 
ditional precautions  against  fraudulent  invoices.77  He  urged,  as  one 
reason  for  increased  rates  of  duty  on  imports,  the  necessity  of  enlarging 
the  then-existing  system  of  national  defence.  He  estimated  that  the 
total  amount  of  annual  imports  into  the  country  for  the  years  1842, 
1843  and  1844,  would  be  about  ninety-three  millions  of  dollars.  He 
advised  duties  on  tea  and  coffee  to  be  limited  to  three  years.  The  fol- 
lowing extracts  from  the  report  of  Mr.  Forward,  made  nearly  half  a 
century  ago,  are  instructive  now,  by  way  of  showing  his  appreciation 
of  the  relation  between  ad  valorem  and  specific  rates,  and  the  light  in 
which  foreign  manufacturers  sending  their  goods  to  this  country  on 
consignment  were  then  regarded : 

‘ 1 With  a view  to  guard  the  revenue  against  fraudulent  undervaluations 
which  cannot  be  entirely  prevented  by  the  existing  scheme  of  ad  valorem 
duties,  specific  duties  are  proposed  in  nearly  all  cases  when  practicable. 
The  operation  of  the  system  of  specific  duties  may  not  be  perfectly  equal 
in  all  cases,  in  respect  to  the  value  of  the  articles  included  under  it. 
But  this  inconvenience  is  more  than  compensated  by  the  security  of  the 
revenue  against  evasions,  and  by  the  tendency  of  specific  duties  to 
exclude  worthless  and  inferior  articles,  by  which  purchasers  and  con- 
sumers are'  often  imposed  on. 

“In  assessing  ad  valorem  duties  the  foreign  value  of  goods  imported 
has  been  assumed  as  a basis  of  the  duty.  In  ascertaining  this  value  by 
appraisement,  it  is  attempted  to  place  some  new  guards  on  the  reve- 
nue. But  it  may  be  worthy  of  consideration,  whether  it  would  not  be 
advisable  to  adopt  a regulation  by  which  the  option  should  be  given  to 
the  Collector  in  cases  where  supposed  undervaluation  in  the  invoices 
exists,  to  take  the  goods  for  the  use  of  the  Government,  on  paying  the 
importer  for  the  same  at  the  value  mentioned  in  the  invoice,  together 
with  an  advance  of  ten  per  cent,  thereon,  and  the  average  of  costs  and 
charges  on  the  importation  of  similar  goods. 

“A  material,  and  indeed  a fundamental  consideration,  which  recon- 
ciled a large  portion  of  the  country  to  the  compromise  act,  was  the 
home  valuation  which  it  promised.  This  consideration  having  failed, 
all  parties  are  at  liberty  to  project  such  new  scheme  for  the  adjustment 
of  duties  on  imports  as  the  common  interest  may  demand.  But  in  at- 
tempting such  adjustment,  the  spirit  of  concession  and  forbearance, 
which  should  characterize  every  measure  bearing  extensively  upon 
various  and  sometimes  conflicting  interests,  or  speaking  perhaps  with 
more  propriety,  in  this  instance,  of  conflicting  opinions,  ought  to  be 
observed.  In  this  respect,  and  this  only,  can  the  great  principles  which 
entered  into  the  compromise  act  be  substantially  carried  out. 

“The  system  of  cash  duties,  although  a material  condition  in  the 
arrangement  of  the  compromise  act,  must  now  stand  upon  its  own  in- 
trinsic merits.  In  this  view  alone  it  is  recommended  to  Congress.  The 
abolition  of  custom-house  credits  is  a measure  sustained  by  reasons 
which  appear  to  the  Department  to  be  conclusive.  In  order  to  appre- 


S.  Ex.  72 ii 


XVIII  RKPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


ciate  the  advantages  of  a cash  system,  it  may  be  well  to  premise  that 
more  than  one -half  of  all  the  imports  from  Europe,  and  a considerable 
portion  of  those  from  other  countries,  are  on  foreign  account  In  some 
branches  of  the  import  business  (silks  for  instance)  American  mer- 
chants have  given  place  almost  entirely  to  foreigners.  The  causes 
which  have  induced  this  state  of  things  are  various,  and  may  not  be 
equally  operative.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  among  these  causes, 
our  credit  system  may  not  have  been  without  some  influence.  But, 
waiving  all  discussion  of  this  point  at  present,  the  fact  that  so  large  an 
amount  of  the  import  business  is  now  in  foreign  hands,  and  that  the 
advantages,  if  any,  of  the  credit  system  accrue  in  a great  measure  to 
them,  is  a consideration  not  to  be  disregarded.  Another  considera- 
tion of  great  weight  in  this  matter  is  the  circumstance  that  the  fluctua- 
tions and  revulsions  so  frequently  experienced  in  our  great  marts  of 
foreign  commerce,  the  effects  of  which  have  been  as  often  felt  through- 
out the  whole  country,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  some  extent,  to  the  facilities 
afforded  by  our  system  of  custom-house  credits.  They  are,  for  all  prac- 
tical purposes,  a loan  of  money  to  the  amount  of  the  duties,  by  the  Gov- 
ernment to  the  importing  merchant.  The  credit  itself  becomes  a capital 
in  trade,  and  serves  to  stimulate  and  progressively  enlarge  that  portion 
of  the  import  business  which  rests  wholly  on  a fictitious  basis. 

4 “ It  may  be  true  that  men  of  small  capital,  or  without  any  capital 
at  all,  would  be  benefited  by  obtaining  credit  from  the  Government ; 
but  it  is  not  less  true  that  the  claim  to  this  extraordinary  indulgence, 
if  it  exist  at  all,  attaches  solely  to  the  American  merchant,  and  belongs 
in  no  way  to  foreigners.  It  is,  moreover,  worthy  of  remark,  that  in  a 
sound  condition  of  the  trade  when  foreign  supplies  are  really  called 
for  by  the  wants  of  the  country,  the  means  of  paying  the  duties  are 
insured  by  the  prospect  of  a ready  market,  or  may  be  obtained  upon 
the  credit  and  responsibility  of  the  importer,  in  the  community  where 
he  resides.  If  he  does  not  possess  this  credit  or  responsibility  among 
his  neighbors,  there  appears  no  very  good  reason  why  he  should  be 
trusted  by  the  Government.  The  security  which  he  offers  in  the  one 
case  would  be  equally  attainable  in  the  other. 

“The  system  of  credits,  established  in  the  infancy  of  our  commerce, 
when  there  was  but  little  capital  in  the  country,  and  the  import  busi- 
ness was  on  a footing  entirely  different  from  what  it  now  is,  might 
have  been  productive  of  real  advantage.  But  the  state  of  things  which 
attended  its  establishment  no  longer  continues.  Capital  is  sufficiently 
abundant  for  supplying  the  country  with  foreign  products,  and  much 
of  the  trade  itself  has  been  shifted  from  American  to  foreign  hands. 

“Among  the  direct  advantages  expected  to  arise  from  the  cash  sys- 
tem is  its  tendency  to  check  overtrading,  and  to  restrain  importations 
within  limits  indicated  by  the  wants  of  the  country  and  the  probable 
amount  of  its  exchangable  surplus.  It  needs  no  labored  argument  or 
research  to  prove  that  the  present  embarrassment  in  all  our  departments 
of  labor  and  enterprise  have  arisen  very  much  from  overtrading,  nor 
does  it  require  much  discussion  to  show  that  the  spirit  of  overtrading 
and  reckless  adventure  has  been  favored  by  the  system  of  custom-house 
credits. 7 7 

1842. — In  the  highly  protective  tariff  law  of  1842  there  w^ere  many 
new  devices  to  prevent  and  punish  false  invoices  of  merchandise  paying 
ad  valorem  rates,  and  also  to  secure  correct  appraisals.  The  sixteenth 
section  is,  as  has  just  been  said,  substantially  a re-enactment  of  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XIX 


seventh  section  of  the  law  of  1832,  except  that  the  latter  requires  an 
appraisement  to  be  made  according  to  the  market  value  or  wholesale 
price  at  the  time  when  purchased,  in  the  principal  markets  of  the  country 
whence  the  same  shall  have  been  imported  into  the  United  States, 
instead  of  the  actual  value  at  the  place  of  exportation , as  in  1832,  or 
actual  cost  at  such  place  as  in  1799.  It  restored  the  contrivance 
dropped  in  1830,  to  levy  an  additional  or  penal  duty  if  the  appraised 
value  exceeded  the  invoice  value ; it  declared  that  if  the  appraised 
value  should  exceed  by  ten  per  centum  or  more  the  invoice  value,  then 
in  addition  to  the  regular  duty  there  should  be  levied  fifty  per  centum  of 
the  duty  imposed  upon  the  same  when  fairly  invoiced.  By  another 
section,  the  several  collectors  were  authorized,  whenever  they  should 
deem  it  necessary  to  protect  the  revenue  against  frauds  or  undervalua- 
tion, and  the  same  was  practicable,  to  take  the  amount  of  duties  charge- 
able on  any  article  bearing  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  in  the  article 
itself,  and  cause  the  merchandise  so  taken  to  be  sold  at  public  auction 
within  twenty  days.  Jn  another  section  was  enacted,  for  the  first  time, 
a provision  of  law  now  known  and  substantially  repeated  in  1883,  as 
the  44 Similitude  Section.”  Another  section  made  the  requirements  in 
respect  to  the  examination  of  invoices  and  packages  more  severe. 

1846. — In  1846  came  a purely  ad  valorem  tariff,  in  which  all  im- 
ported merchandise  was  for  the  first  time  classified  in  schedules.  In 
the  eighth  section  an  important  change  was  made.  Previous  laws 
had,  as  it  has  been  seen,  either  increased  the  dutiable  value  when  the 
appraised  value  exceeded  the  invoice  value,  or,  as  in  1842,  had  levied 
a penal  duty.  All  our  laws  have  in  effect  required  that  the  entry 
paper  presented  at  the  custom-house  be  a transcript  of  the  invoice.  It 
was  felt  to  be  unjust  to  punish  an  importer  by  an  additional  rate  of 
duty  if  the  appraised  value  exceeded  the  invoice  value,  and  the  im- 
porter not  be  permitted  to  add  to  the  invoice  value  on  entry  in  order 
to  make  it  conform  to  what  might  be  the  market  value.  Therefore  the 
eighth  section  of  the  law  of  1846  authorized  an  importer  of  merchan- 
dise, 4 4 actually  purchased, 7 7 to  make  on  entry  such  addition  therein  4 4 to 
the  cost  or  value  given  in  the  invoice  as  in  his  opinion  may  raise  the 
same  to  the  true  market  value  in  the  principal  markets  of  the  country 
whence  the  importation  shall  have  been  made,  or  in  which  the  import 
shall  have  been  originally  manufactured,  or  produced,  as  the  case  may 
be. 7 7 The  same  section  added  the  requirement  that  if  the  appraised 
value  should  exceed  by  ten  per  centum  or  more  the  invoice  value,  then 
a penal  duty  of  twenty  per  cent,  should  be  inflicted,  but,  4 4 under  no  cir- 
cumstances shall  the  duties  be  assessed  upon  an  amount  less  than  the 
invoice  value,  any  law  of  Congress  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.77 

Under  this  law  a question  arose,  which  was  decided  by  the  Supreme 
Court  in  Greely  vs.  Thompson  (10  How.,  225)  to  the  effect  that  by  the 
laws  of  1842  and  1846  the  value  of  merchandise  is  to  be  ascertained  as 
of  the  time  of  its  procurement,  and  not  as  of  the  time  of  its  exportation. 
The  opinion  of  the  Court  was  delivered  at  the  December  Term,  1850. 
The  importation  was  of  railroad-iron,  manufactured  in  Wales,  and  made 
ready  for  shipment  to  agents  in  Boston,  on  January  24th,  1849. 
The  invoice  and  bill  of  lading  of  the  iron  were  dated  February  24th,  1849. 
The  invoice  value  of  the  iron  was  five  pounds  per  ton.  That  was  proved 
to  be  the  fair  market  price  on  January  24th,  1849,  when  the  merchandise 
was  procured  and  ready  for  shifnnent.  The  Treasury  Department  in- 
structed the  appraisers  that  the  valuation  should  be  as  of  February  24th, 


XX 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


1849,  the  date  of  shipment,  and  thereupon  the  appraisers  fixed  the 
value  at  five  pounds  fifteen  shillings  per  ton,  which  was  more  than  ten 
per  cent,  above  the  invoice  value,  and  a penal  duty  was  exacted,  which 
was  paid  under  protest  and  a suit  brought  to  recover  the  differ- 
ence, as  well  as  the  penal  duty.  It  was  also  proved  on  the  trial  that, 
during  the  month  that  intervened  between  the  procurement  and  ship- 
ment of  the  iron,  one  of  those  extraordinary  fluctuations  in  prices  took 
place  by  which  similar  iron  rose  in  value  nearly  twenty  per  cent.  The 
Court,  decided  that,  according  to  the  law’s  in  force  at  the  time  the  im- 
portation was  made,  the  penalty  of  twenty  per  cent,  only  applied  to 
purchased  goods,  and  did  not  apply  to  goods  consigned  by  a manufact- 
urer, and  therefore  a penalty  could  not  be  levied  on  this  importation. 
In  giving  these  reasons  for  the  decision  that  the  date  of  procurement, 
and  not  the  date  of  exportation,  wras  the  time  when  the  appraisers  must 
fix  dutiable  value,  the  Court  said : 

“ Indeed,  it  would  seem  reasonable,  independent  of  the  express  lan- 
guage of  the  acts  of  Congress,  that  if  uncertainty  remained  about  the 
true  construction  of  the  fifth  section  of  the  act  of  1823,  the  proper  time 
for  fixing  the  value  of  goods  should  be  considered  the  time  they  were 
purchased  or  procured,  because  the  idea  of  having  the  value  and  charges 
fixed,  and  assessing  the  duty  on  them,  is  to  tax  the  importer  on  the 
amount,  or  value,  he  has  expended.  And  what  he  has  expended  cannot 
be  more  than  he  has  thus  paid ; and  the  invoice  itself,  often  prepared 
in  the  interior,  days  and  weeks  before  the  vessel  sails,  states  the  price, 
or  value,  as  then  made  up,  and  not  at  the  time  of  the  bill  of  lading,  when 
the  market  value  may  be  higher  or  lower.  We  do  not  find  that  the 
value  at  the  time  of  exportation  of  goods  of  the  growth  or  manufacture 
of  the  country  whence  exported,  has  ever  been  selected  by  any  act  of 
Congress  for  purposes  of  assessing  the  duty.  * * * The  value  on 
which  to  tax  the  importer  is  the  capital,  or  price,  he  has  invested  in 
the  goods,  and  which  is  prima  facie  the  amount  paid  if  purchased,  or 
the  amount  for  which  they  were  procured  if  not  purchased.” 

That  would  seem  to  imply  that  a manufacturer  could  invoice  at  cost 
price. 

1851. — In  1851  there  was  an  enactment  made  which  changed  the  pol- 
icy of  the  previous  laws,  as  expounded  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
opinion  from  which  quotation  has  just  been  made.  The  first  section  of 
the  act  of  March  3d,  1851,  declared  that  in  all  cases  where  any  ad  va- 
lorem rate  shall  be  imposed,  the  collector  shall  “cause  the  market 
value  or  wholesale  price  thereof  at  the  period  of  exportation  to  the 
United  States,  in  the  principal  markets  of  the  country  from  which  the 
same  shall  have  been  imported,”  to  be  appraised.  The  same  law 
created  four  General  Appraisers,  to  be  employed  in  visiting  the  several 
ports  under  the  direction  of  the  Head  of  this  Department,  and  said 
that,  whenever  practicable,  reappraisals  shall  be  determined  by  one 
of  these  General  Appraisers  associated  with  a merchant  selected  by  the 
Collector;  and,  if  the  two  disagree,  the  Collector  shall  decide  between 
them.  By  this  enactment,  the  power  of  appeal  to  the  Head  of  this  De- 
partment in  reappraisals,  and  his  power  to  finally  fix  dutiable  value, 
were  taken  away. 

1856. — In  1856,  Congress  not  having  amended  the  law  levying  penal 
duty,  which  law  had  been  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  as  not  appli- 
cable to  merchandise  consigned  by  the  manufacturer,  my  predecessor, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XXI 


Mr.  Guthrie,  on  July  22d,  1856,  urged  the  amendment  upon  Congress. 
In  his  letter  of  that  date  he  said  : 

“As  the  law  now  stands,  therefore,  upon  the  construction  which  the 
Courts  appear  to  be  trying  to  give  to  it,  the  foreign  manufacturer, 
or  producer,  is  not  subject  to  an  additional  duty  for  undervaluation. 
The  importer  who  purchases  in  the  foreign  market  and  imports  into 
the  United  States  is.  The  foreign  manufacturer,  or  producer,  in  any 
experiments  he  may  choose  to  try  upon  the  public  revenue  by  under- 
valued invoices,  runs  no  risk  of  additional  duty,  to  which  his  competi- 
tor, the  American  merchant,  who  purchased  the  imports  abroad,  is  ex- 
posed. This  discrimination  against  the  domestic  importer  in  favor  of 
the  foreign  is  as  impolitic  as  it  is  unjust.  Foreign  manufacturers,  or 
producers,  by  establishing  partners  or  agents  in  this  country,  importing 
and  entering  imports  on  their  own  account,  and  then  making  sales  in 
pursuance  of  orders  previous  or  subsequent  to  the  entry,  can  thus  sup- 
ply our  markets  with  their  own  products  without  being  subjected  to 
any  adequate  check  against  undervaluation.  For,  while  they  are  not 
subject  to  the  additional  duty  in  such  cases,  to  which  the  domestic  im- 
porter is  liable,  nor,  indeed,  to  any  additional  duty,  upon  the  construc- 
tion of  the  law  which  seems  to  be  favored  by  the  Courts,  they  could  be 
reached  only  by  forfeiture  of  their  goods  in  cases  in  which  the  badge  of 
fraud  was  so  clear  that  the  United  States  would  have  no  difficulty  in 
showing  that  fact.” 

Thus  foreign  manufacturers  excited  solicitude  and  anxiety  in  1856 ! 

In  consequence  of  this  representation  by  the  Head  of  this  Department, 
the  second  section  of  the  law  of  March  3d,  1857,  was  enacted,  so  that  a 
penalty  could  be  inflicted  on  goods  consigned  by  a manufacturer.  In 
the  proviso  of  that  act  there  was  an  additional  change.  Theretofore  the 
statute  had  said  that  duty  should  not  be  assessed  upon  an  amount  less 
than  the  invoice  value,  but  the  enactment  of  1857  declared  “that,  under 
no  circumstances,  shall  the  duty  be  assessed  upon  an  amount  less  than 
the  invoice,  or  entered , value,  any  law  of  Congress  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding.” 

The  tariff  law  of  1846  was  a tariff  of  comparatively  low  ad  valorem 
rates,  but  under  it  undervaluations  seem  to  have  abounded. 

EFFORTS  TO  PREVENT  PRESENTATION  OF  FALSE  INVOICES  AFTER  1861. 

After  1857,  the  first  and  most  important  enactment  to  secure  the  pre- 
sentation of  truthful  invoices,  and  to  punish  those  who  presented  false 
invoices,  was  that  of  March  3d,  1863  (Chapter  LXXVI),  which  required 
all  invoices  to  be  made  in  triplicate.  It  greatly  broadened  the  character 
of  the  offence  for  the  commission  of  which  confiscation  was  denounced, 
by  declaring  that  if  any  owner,  consignee,  or  agent  of  any  merchandise 
shall  knowingly  make  or  attempt  to  make,  an  entry  by  means  of  a false 
invoice,  or  a false  certificate  of  a consular  officer,  or  by  means  of  any  false 
document  or  paper,  or  by  any  false  or  fraudulent  practice  or  appliance 
whatsoever,  said  merchandise,  or  its  value,  shall  be  forfeited.  There 
was  allowed  to  the  District  Attorneys  two  per  cent,  upon  all  moneys 
realized  by  any  forfeiture  suit  conducted  by  them.  Judges  of  the 
Federal  District  Courts  were  authorized  to  issue  warrants  directed  to 
the  Collector  of  the  port  empowering  him,  or  his  agents,  to  seize  the 
merchant’s  books  or  papers  relating  to  revenue  frauds,  and  carry  them 


XXII 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


away  to  be  inspected,  to  which  last,  legislation,  and  its  amendments  in 
1866  and  1867,  I have  referred  at  length  in  my  Annual  Report,- (p.  LII.) 
It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  at  the  time  of  this  enactment  in  1863,  all 
persons  were,  under  the  law  of  1799,  stimulated  by  the  prospect  of 
realizing  one-fourth  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  forfeiture,  to  give  the 
Government  information  of  contemplated,  or  perpetrated,  frauds  upon 
the  customs  revenue,  and  that  each  of  the  three  chief  officers  of  the 
customs  at  each  port  was  encouraged  to  make  seizures  by  a share  of  the 
result,  if  the  prosecution  resulted  favorably  to  the  United  States. 
Although  the  legislation  of  1863  was  severe,  and  although  it  broke 
down  ten  years  later  by  its  own  weight,  yet  it  probably  operated  in 
fact  to  deter  merchants  from  the  presentation  of  false  invoices,  and  in 
enabling  the  Executive  to  more  thoroughly  execute  the  tariff  laws  dur- 
ing the  period  of  the  Civil  War,  than  would  have  been  possible  with- 
out such  deterrent  legislation.  It  may  be  explained,  at  that  critical 
period  in  the  history  of  the  country,  by  much  the  same  reasons  as  the 
forced  recruitment  of  soldiers,  the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  Habeas 
Corpus  in  certain  places,  and  other  restrictions  upon  the  individual 
liberty  of  the  citizen,  or  of  an  alien  sojourning  in  the  country,  were 
defended. 

1874. — In  1874  all  the  provisions  of  law  under  which  moieties  of 
any  fines,  penalties  or  forfeitures  under  the  customs- revenue  laws,  or 
any  share  therein,  or  any  commission  thereon  were  paid  to  informers, 
or  officers  of  the  customs,  were  repealed.  All  power  to  make  Executive 
inquisition  into  the  books  or  papers  of  importers  was  taken  away,  and 
the  power  of  Courts  and  juries  to  inflict  confiscation  was  greatly  abridged. 
The  previous  law  had  forfeited  all  the  merchandise  on  an  invoice  if  any 
item  thereof  was  made  with  a deliberate  intent  to  defraud  the  revenue, 
but  the  legislation  of  1874  restricted  confiscation  to  the  package  con- 
taining the  article  to  which  the  fraud  related.  But,  apart  from ’those 
things,  the  law  of  1874  was  comprehensive  by  declaring  that  any  person 
who  should 4 4 with  intent  to  defraud  the  revenue  make,  or  attempt  to  make, 
an  entry  of  imported  merchandise,  by  means  of  any  fraudulent  or  false 
invoice,  affidavit,  letter  or  paper,  or  by  means  of  any  false  statement, 
written  or  verbal,”  or  44  who  shall  be  guilty  of  any  wilful  act  of  omission, 
by  means  whereof  the  United  States  shall  be  deprived  of  the  legal  du- 
ties, or  of  any  portion  thereof,  accruing  upon  the  merchandise  or  any 
portion  thereof  embraced  or  referred  to  in  such  invoice,  affidavit,  letter, 
paper  or  statement,  or  affected  by  such  act  of  omission,  shall,  for  each 
offence  be  fitied  in  any  sum  not  exceeding  five  thousand  dollars  nor  less 
than  fifty  dollars,  or  be  imprisoned  for  any  term  not  exceeding  two 
years,  or  both,  and  in  addition  to  such  fine,  such  merchandise  shall  be 
forfeited.  ’ ’ 


WHY  HAVE  NOT  CUSTOMS  FRAUDS  BEEN  PUNISHED? 

Such  is  the  law  to-day.  Certainly  the  language  used  in  the  act  of 
1874,  is  broad  enough  to  cover  each  and  all  of  the  offences,  whether  of 
false  invoices  or  false  valuations,  about  which  so  much  is  now  heard. 
This  law  has  been  in  force  during  the  last  eleven  years  and  more.  If 
false  invoices,  false  statements,  or  other  wilful  acts  by  means  of  which 
this  Government  is,  or  has  been,  deprived  of  its  lawful  duties  on  im- 
ported merchandise,  have  so  abounded  during  the  last  ten  or  five,  or 
three  years,  or  one  year,  how,  or  why,  has  it  happened  that  so  few 


EE VI SION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XXIII 


prosecutions,  for  confiscation  of  the  inculpated  merchandise,  or  for 
criminal  punishment  of  individuals,  have  been  undertaken1?  If  any 
class  in  the  community,  whether  manufacturers  or  importers,  or  if  any 
individuals  in  the  community,  whether  in  office  or  out  of  office,  are,  or 
have  been,  cognizant  of  these  frauds,  why  have  not  the  charges  and 
specifications  been  made  to  the  Treasury  Department,  or  to  Collectors 
of  Customs,  or  to  District  Attorneys,  thereby  compelling  the  attempted 
imprisonment  of  the  offenders,  and  confiscation  of  the  offending 
property. 

I was  perplexed  by  inquiries  of  this  character  while  engaged  in  the 
preparation  of  my  Annual  Report,  and  I am  still  perplexed  by  them. 
Out  of  an  effort  to  come  to  a satisfactory  conclusion  therein  in  my  own 
mind,  came  the  series  of  inquiries  which  I addressed  to  customs  offi- 
cers in  the  several  collection  districts,  and  to  law  officers  in  the  several 
judicial  districts,  the  replies  to  which  I transmitted  to  Congress.  In 
that  document  I omitted  nothing  contained  in  the  records  of  this  De- 
partment which  I thought  would  aid  Congress  in  coming  to  a safe  con- 
clusion. To  that  end  1 included  in  the  document  what  seemed  to  me 
the  conflicting  views  of  the  several  agents  of  this  Department,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  of  the  local  officers  in  the  several  collection  districts  on 
the  other  hand.  The  opinions  of  these  two  classes  of  officers,  it  will 
be  observed,  came  from  those  who  had  been  for  a long  time  in  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Government  and  had  been  responsible  for  the  execution 
of  the  customs  laws  before  I became  the  Head  of  this  Department.  I 
presented  facts  and  statistics  tending  to  show  that  prosecutions  and  in- 
dictments for  customs  frauds,  which  had  been  many  and  continuous 
from  1863  to  1874,  suddenly  ceased  after  that  date.  It  will  be  observed, 
for  example,  that  the  Collector  of.  the  port  of  Boston,  from  1882  to 
1886;  reported  to  me  (p.  468)  under  date  of  September  16,  1885 : 

“I  have  no  evidence,  neither  have  I been  able  to  procure  any,  that 
the  duties  have  not  within  the  last  few  years,  been  levied  and  collected 
as  the  law  prescribes.  I have  no  evidence,  neither  have  I been  able  to 
procure  any,  that  the  full  amount  of  duty  prescribed  by  Congress  has 
not  been  collected.” 

The  Naval  Officer  and  the  Surveyor  at  the  port  of  Boston  appear  to 
have  substantially  concurred  in  this  opinion.  And  yet  Mr.  Bingham, 
who  had  been  Special  Agent  in  that  Collection  District  from  1869  to 
1885,  reported  to  me  (p.  385)  on  September  21,  1885 : 

“There  is  abundant  evidence  in  the  records  of  the  Department  and 
the  several  custom-houses  that  various  kinds  of  imported  merchandise 
have,  within  the  last  few  years,  been  entered  and  passed  at  lower  rates 
than  those  prescribed  by  iaw.” 

My  attention  having  been  called  to  the  divergence,  if  not  positive 
conflict  of  opinion,  between  the  Special  Agent  and  the  Collector  at  the 
port  of  Boston,  I addressed  to  Special  Agent  Bingham,  under  date  of 
October  2d,  1885,  a second  inquiry  calculated  to  call  for  a revision  of 
his  opinion,  as  to  any  differences  that  might  exist  between  himself  and 
the  chief  customs  officers  at  the  port  of  Boston.  In  his  second  reply 
Mr.  Bingham  substantially  reiterated  his  previous  opinions,  and  added 
that  “Undervaluation  is  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception.” 

A similar  divergence  or  conflict  of  opinion  may  be  said,  I think,  to 
exist  generally  throughout  the  country  between  the  Special  Agents  and 
the  chief  officers  at  the  several  ports.  The  replies  of  the  appraising 


XXIV  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


officers,  including  the  examiners  at  the  port  of  New  York,  which  are 
published  in  the  volumes  referred  to,  are  especially  noteworthy  in  this 
connection  as  tending  to  deny  or  ignore  the  existence  of  undervalua- 
tions or  frauds  at  that  port,  such  as  exist  in  the  opinions  of  the  special 
agents,  and  of  so  many  manufacturers  and  importers. 

Great  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  sixteenth  section  of  the  act  of 
1874,  because,  as  is  alleged  by  many,  it  made  successful  prosecutions 
for  forfeiture  impossible,  by  reason  of  the  provision  that  the  jury  must 
specially  find  intent,  and  because  it  shifted  the  burden  of  proof  upon 
the  prosecution.  In  that  regard  I think  the  letter  which  Mr.  Justice 
Blatchford  so  kindly  addressed  to  me  in  reply  to  my  inquiry  (p.  868) 
is  most  important.  That  sixteenth  section  of  the  law  of  1874  only  re- 
quired the  Court  to  submit  to  the  jury  as  a distinct  and  separate  prop- 
osition, whether  the  alleged  acts  were  done  with  an  actual  intention 
to  defraud  the  United  States,  and  to  require  on  such  proposition  a special 
finding  by  such  jury.  If  frauds  have  been  within  the  last  few  years, 
and  now  are,  perpetrated  upon  the  customs  revenue,  of  such  a char- 
acter as  are  generally  indicated,  I am  at  a loss  to  understand  how,  with 
adequate  knowledge  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  cognizant  of  those 
facts,  and  also  on  the  part  of  prosecuting  officers,  the  sixteenth  section 
can  be  a serious  impediment  in  the  way  of  confiscation.  The  aver- 
ment is,  as  I understand  it,  that  foreign  manufacturers  and  others 
deliberately,  knowingly,  intelligently  and  intentionally  prepare  in- 
voices, and  cause  them  to  be  presented  at  the  custom  houses  in  this 
country,  which  do  not,  and  that  those  who  prepare  such  invoices  know 
that  they  do  not,  contain  the  prices  which  the  laws  of  this  country  require 
to  be  inserted  in  such  invoices,  but  that  lower  prices  are,  with  guilty 
knowledge,  inserted  in  such  invoices  in  order  to  evade  the  payment  of 
duties  known  to  be  chargeable  thereon,  and  to  defraud  the  revenue  of 
the  United  States.  If  such  facts  actually  exist,  they  must  be  within 
the  knowledge  of  persons  in  this  country  who  can  produce,  or  enable 
the  Government  to  produce,  the  proof  thereof,  and  if  produced  and 
presented  to  a Court  and  jury  in  New  York,  or  in  any  other  judicial 
district,  I am  unwilling  to  believe,  and  do  not  believe,  that  there  would 
be  a failure  of  justice  by  a refusal  of  juries  to  return  a verdict  which 
would  enable  the  Court  to  pronounce  a condemnation. 

I do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  expressing  the  opinion  that  such 
frauds  have  not  been  perpetrated  within  the  last  few  years  in  great 
abundance,  or  that  they  are  not  now  perpetrated.  But  why  have  not 
more  prosecutions  been  attempted?  One  reason  maybe  that  under  the 
existing  law  there  is  no  one  with  sufficient  motive,  or  inducement,  I 
will  not  say'  sufficient  fidelity  to  the  Government,  to  make  the  pre- 
liminary seizure  which  must  be  made  before  the  property  can  be  taken 
possession  of  by  a Marshal  on  a warrant  issued  by  the  Court.  It  is 
not  possible  for  the  Head  of  this  Department  to  make  such  seizures 
in  any  or  all  of  the  one  hundred  and  sixteen  collection  districts  of 
the  country,  nor  is  it  practicable  for  the  Head  of  this  Department 
to  direct  that  such  seizures  be  made.  The  law  contemplates  that  one 
whose  property  is  seized  shall  have  a remedy  for  an  unlawful  and  an 
unjustifiable  seizure,  by  a suit  against  the  one  who  makes  it.  The  law 
prudently  requires  that  there  shall  be  an  actual  seizure  before  a libel 
of  prosecution  is  filed,  inasmuch  as  if  a seizure  by  order  of  the  Court 
is  the  first  seizure  made,  the  person  injured  cannot  bring  a suit  for 
damage  against  the  Court.  If  the  Head  of  this  Department  should 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XXV 


direct  a seizure  to  be  made  by  a customs  officer,  it  would  be  unjust  to 
bold  that  officer  responsible  in  damages  for  an  unjustifiable  seizure 
which  was  made  by  command  of  his  superior  officer.  I am  not  aware 
of  any  statute  which  authorizes  a warrant  to  be  drawn  to  pay  a 
judgment  recovered  against  a person  making  a customs  seizure,  if  that 
seizure  shall  have  been  pronounced  by  the  judgment  unjustifiable. 
Under  the  moiety  law,  as  it  existed  from  1799  to  1874,  the  officers  of 
the  customs  appear  to  have  been  willing  to  take  that  risk.  The  arrange- 
ments of  the  law  of  1799  by  which  the  distribution  of  a share  of  the 
proceeds  of  forfeitures  to  informers,  was  a judicial  act,  wherein  the 
informer  could  vindicate  his  rights  in  Court , tended  to  uncover  and 
display  to  the  Government  information  in  regard  to  attempted  or  per- 
petrated customs  frauds,  the  obtaining  of  which  is  now  practically  im- 
possible. 

It  is,  I repeat,  impracticable  for  the  Head  of  this  Department  to 
make  seizures,  or  order  them  to  be  made,  or  make  affidavits  charging 
criminal  offences,  but  I am  authorized  to  say  that  if  any  responsible  citizen , — 
manufacturer  or  importer , — will  present  charges  and  specifications  showing 
probable  cause  to  believe  that  a fraud  on  the  customs  revenue  has  been 
knowingly  perpetrated , the  whole  power  of  the  Executive  will  be  immediately 
brought  to  bear , and  vigorously  applied , on  the  criminal  and  civil  side  of  the 
Court , in  order  to  bring  the  accused  to  condign  punishment. 

NEW  COERCION  LAWS  NEARLY  COINCIDENT  WITH  INCREASED  AD  VALO- 
REM RATES  DOWN  TO  1874. — NEED  OF  SIMPLIFICATION. 

It  will  be  observed  from  the  historical  review  which  has  been  at- 
tempted of  the  tariff  legislation  of  the  country  from  the  organization  of 
the  Government  down  to  the  present  day,  that  increasing  severity  of 
legislation  to  prevent  customs  frauds  has  come  down  to  us  side  by  side 
with  a raising  of  the  rates  of  duty,  and  with  an  enlargement  of  the  ap- 
plication of  ad  valorem  rates.  The  true  inference  to  be  drawn  from 
that  fact  cannot,  I think,  fail  to  appear. 

There  will  be  persons  who  do  not,  or  will  pretend  they  do  not,  under- 
stand a law  which  works  to  their  disadvantage,  no  matter  how  clear 
it  may  be,  but  I think  there  are  those  who  are  really  and  honestly  con- 
fused by  the  technical  and  artificial  character  of  a part  of  our  pres- 
ent customs  legislation.  I am  continually  impressed  by  the  fact  that  so 
many  apparently  well-meaning  persons,  in  letters  to  this  Department, 
write  as  if  they  really  believed  that  all  invoices,  whether  of  purchased 
or  of  consigned  goods,  must  contain  the  actual  cost,  which  is  true  of 
purchased  goods,  but  is  not  true  of  consigned  goods.  A few  manufact- 
urers appear  to  believe  that  as  a purchaser  must  invoice  at  actual  cost , 
so  must  a manufacturer  whose  goods  are  sent  here  on  consignment. 
There  is  much  also  in  what  is  said  and  done  by  our  consular  officers 
abroad,  which  leads  one  to  fear  that  too  many  of  them  do  not  under- 
stand, or  even  try  to  understand,  the  legal  distinction  between  the  two 
classes  of  invoices. 

Our  laws  require  a manufacturer  to  declare  in  his  invoice  the  fair  mar- 
ket value  at  the  time  when,  and  the  place  where  the  goods  were  manu- 
factured. It  is  quite  possible  that  the  time  of  manufacture  may  ante- 
date by  many  months,  or  even  by  years,  the  date  of  the  starting  of  the 
merchandise  on  its  way  to  this  country.  Up  to  1851,  as  has  been  shown, 
our  laws  required  the  invoice  to  be  of  the  day  of  purchase,  or  procure- 


XXVI  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


ment,  or  manufacture ; but  since  1851  the  appraisal  is  made  as  of  the 
time  of  exportation  to  the  United  States.  _ 

It  may  well  enough  happen  that  goods,  whose  value  is  influenced  by 
the  fashion  of  the  day,  were  manufactured  in  1883  or  1884,  but  consigned 
in  1886,  or  when  out  of  fashion  in  Europe.  Under  such  circumstances, 
the  manufacturer  too  often  inserts  in  his  invoice  the  value  at  the  time 
of  shipment , or  even  less  than  that  value,  instead  of  the  value  at  the 
date  of  manufacture , although  our  law  requires  that  the  value  shall 
be  on  the  day  when  the  manufacture  of  the  merchandise  was  com- 
pleted. The  inconvenience,  and  pelhaps  the  injustice,  of  our  existing 
law,  are  seen  in  this : A manufacturer  cannot  on  entry  reduce  the  in- 
voice value,  although  he  may  add  to  it  to  make  market  value  and  save 
a penalty ; the  Appraiser  may  return  to  the  Collector  a value  less  than 
the  invoice  value,  but  our  Collector  must,  nevertheless,  levy  duty  on 
not  less  than  the  entered  value.  One  can  readily  see  how  useful  to  the 
Appraisers  it  would  be  to  have  before  them  a declaration  by  the  manu- 
facturer of  the  market  value  of  merchandise  on  the  day  its  manufacture 
was  completed,  but  in  order  to  make  that  information  valuable  the  in- 
voice should  specify  the  date  of  the  manufacture,  which  no  invoice,  as 
I am  informed,  ever  does. 

I respectfully  suggest  the  inquiry  whether  the  law,  requiring  a man- 
ufacturer sending  merchandise  hither  on  consignment  to  declare  in  his 
invoice  the  value  at  the  time  of  manufacture , cannot  safely  be  changed 
so  as  to  require  him  to  state  the  value  at  the  time  of  shipment , in  order 
that  the  valuation  by  the  Appraisers  and  the  valuation  in  the  invoice 
may  refer  to  the  same  period. 

The  belief  is  quite  general  that  our  law  constrains  the  appraising 
officers  to  be  controlled  by  the  invoice,  whereas  the  invoice  is  only 
insisted  upon  by  the  law  as  a piece  of  evidence  to  inform  the  judg- 
ment of  the  appraising  officers,  and  enable  them  to  come  to  a cor- 
rect conclusion  as  to  the  value  of  the  merchandise  on  the  day  which 
the  law  requires  the  appraising  officers  to  regard.  The  opinion  that 
the  invoice  value  is  conclusive,  or  should  be  conclusive,  upon  the  ap- 
praising officers,  may  have  been  inspired,  or  confirmed,  by  the  provis- 
ion of  the  law  which  forbids  the  collector  to  levy  duty  on  less  than  the 
invoice  or  entered  value,  as  well  as  by  a disregard  of  the  other  require- 
ment of  the  law  that  the  appraisers  are,  by  all  reasonable  ways  and 
means,  to  ascertain  the  market  value  in  the  foreign  country  at  the  date 
of  exportation,  any  invoice,  or  affidavit  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing. In  May,  1856,  the  appraisers  at  the  port  of  Yew  York  returned 
to  the  Collector  a value  less  than  that  declared  in  the  entry,  and  the 
question  was  presented  to  this  Department,  whether  or  not  the  ap- 
praised value  should  be  taken  as  the  dutiable  value.  It  happened  in 
that  case  that  the  importer  raised  on  entry  the  invoice  value,  for 
some  reason  or  other,  possibly  to  avoid  an  apprehended  penalty.  This 
Department,  in  a letter  to  the  Collector  of  Yew  York,  of  May  8th,  1856, 
made  this  observation : 

“ I cannot  comprehend  how  it  is  appraisers  can  undertake  to  say 
that  they  will  disbelieve  the  importer’s  own  declaration  of  value,  when 
he  produced  his  invoice,  and  when  he  adds  to  his  invoice  value ; and 
that  he,  the  appraiser,  knows  better  than  the  importer,  and  therefore 
disbelieves  him,  and  finds  the  value  less  than  he  has  declared  it  to  be. 
Persistence  in  such  a course  by  the  appraisers  would  prove  an  obliquity 
of  judgment  that  it  is  impossible  to  comprehend  or  provide  against. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XXVII 


The  duty  cannot  be  assessed  upon  less  than  the  increased  declared  value, 
no  matter- what  may  be  the  appraised  value  returned  by  the  appraisers, 
and  you  should  report  all  cases  where  the  appraisers  undertake  thus  to 
set  aside  the  evidence  of  the  importer’s  declaration  of  value.” 

As  a result  of  that  letter  from  this  Department,  the  practice  began, 
as  I am  informed,  which  has  since  continued,  under  which  the  ap- 
praising officers,  unless  satisfied  that  the  entered  value  is  too  low, 
report  to  the  Collector,  on  the  invoice,  “Value  Correct.”  It  is  a 
natural  inference  that  if  the  importer’s  declaration  of  value  is  to  be 
so  controlling  in  one  condition  of  facts,  it  ought  to  be  so  controlling 
in  another  condition  of.  facts  wherein  the  appraising  officers  are  in 
doubt  whether  the  invoice  valuation  is  sufficiently  high.  It  may 
not  be  safe  to  mo'dify  the  existing  provision  of  the  law  that  the  Collector 
shall  never  take  duty  on  less  than  the  entered  value  5 and  yet,  in  the 
practical  working  of  that  law  it  may  happen,  under  our  ad  valorem 
system,  that  one  who  buys  in  Paris  a camel’ s-hair  shawl,  for  example, 
and  pays  therefor  five  thousand  francs,  and  enters  it  for  that  sum,  as 
the  purchaser  would  be  required  to  do,  may  be  compelled  to  pay  duty 
on  the  equivalent  in  our  money  of  five  thousand  francs,  but  that  a 
dealer,  buying  on  the  same  day,  in  Paris,  and  from  the  same  seller 
another  shawl  precisely  similar,  but  purchased  for  four  thousand  francs, 
entered  and  appraised  at  that  sum  as  the  real  market  value  of  the 
shawl,  may  only  be  compelled  to  pay  duty  thereon,  or  on  a valuation 
one  thousand  francs  less  than  the  former  valuation. 

These  obvious  inequalities  and  hardships  are,  I think,  inherent  in 
any  ad  valorem  system.  The  experience  of  the  Government  in  1817, 
sixty-nine  years  ago,  when  ad  valorem  rates  were  less  by  one-half,  if 
not  by  two-thirds,  than  now,  and  the  illuminating  report  of  my  prede- 
cessor, Mr.  Crawford,  whose  correct  judgment  has  been  attested  by 
the  praise  of  Mr.  Gallatin,  warn  us  that  even  with  a large  scaling  down 
of  ad  valorem  rates  by  a horizontal  reduction,  or  any  other  reduction, 
the  inequalities  and  hardships  of  an  ad  valorem  system,  and  the  attempt- 
ing or  perpetrating  of  frauds  on  the  revenue  are  not  likely  to  come  to 
an  end.  We  are  living  in  days  when  profits  to  be  derived  from  the 
carrying  on  of  business,  whether  it  be  in  buying  and  selling,  or  man- 
facturing  merchandise,  or  in  the  railway  business,  or  in  banking  busi- 
ness, or  in  brokerage  business,  or  in  steamship  business,  come  from  the 
large  volume  of  business  done  under  conditions  of  very  4 4 thin  ’ ’ rates 
for  transacting  the  business.  Thus  it  happens  that  a comparatively 
small  sum  evaded,  or  saved,  in  the  payment  of  duties  to  the  Govern- 
ment, will  be  sufficient  to  make  the  difference  between  a profit,  or  a 
loss,  in  importation,  and  will  be  sufficient  to  give  victory  in  the  sharp 
contest  between  rival  importers  and  dealers. 

TARIFF  LAWS,  AND  THE  TAX  LAWS  OF  NEW  YORK. 

It  is  said  that  the  present  tendency  of  the  practical  working  of  the 
application  of  an  ad  valorem  system  in  the  raising  of  revenue  on  im- 
ports is  toward  a yearly  diminution  of  dutiable  or  taxable  values,  and 
that  such  yearly  diminution,  without  justifying  change  in  the  law,  is 
not  an  injury  to  the  community,  but  on  the  contrary  is  a benefit  to 
all  concerned,  and  especially  to  consumers.  I cannot  take  that  view. 
Those  who  make  the  assertion  to  which  I refer,  appeal  to  what  is  ob- 
viously going  on  in  the  assessment  of  taxes  under  State  laws  where  the 


XXVIII  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


valuation  is  notoriously  far  below  the  real  valuation.  The  law  of  the 
State  of  New  York  (I  refer  to  it  because  I am  more  familiar  with  it 
than  with  the  laws  of  other  States)  declares  that  uall  lands,  and  all 
personal  estate,  within  the  State,  whether  owned  by  individuals  or  by 
corporations,  shall  be  liable  to  taxation,’7  subject  to  certain  exemptions, 
and  also  that  “all  real  and  personal  estate,  liable  to  taxation,  shall  be 
estimated  and  assessed  by  the  assessors  at  its  full  and  true  value,  as 
they  would  appraise  the  same  in  payment  of  a just  debt  due  from  a sol- 
vent debtor.77  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  in  the  State  of  New  York 
that  law  is  not  fully  and  completely  executed.  Personal  property  es- 
capes taxation  in  part,  and  real  estate  is  undervalued  for  taxes ; but 
there  is  a difference  between  the  customs  laws  of  the  United  States 
and  the  tax  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York  in  the  fact*that,  whereas,  in 
the  former  the  person  owning  the  property  and  presenting  it  for  en- 
try is  required,  and  undertakes,  to  declare,  and  to  declare  under  the 
solemnity  of  an  oath,  the  real  foreign  value  of  his  property,  yet  in 
the  State  of  New  York  no  such  declaration,  or  declaration  of  value  of 
any  kind,  is  required  from  the  owner  of  property.  But  the  most  mate- 
rial difference  and  distinction  are  in  this : By  undertaking  to  levy  uni- 
form rates  and  amounts  of  duty,  at  each  and  all  of  the  ports  of  the 
United  States,  upon  all  similar  merchandise  arriving  therein,  the  Gov- 
ernment injuriously  interferes  with  private  business  if  it  permits  two 
articles,  precisely  similar  in  quality,  and  arriving  by  the  same  vessel, 
to  be  appraised  for  duty  at  different  values  at  different  ports. 

SENATE  BILL  NO.  1153. 

An  alternative  plan  of  not  attempting  to  reduce  the  number  of  duti- 
able articles,  or  prudently  substitute  specific  for  ad  valorem  rates,  or 
eliminate  wherever  possible  the  confusion  of  compound  rates,  or  make 
more  logical  and  clear  requirements  on  invoices,  or  strengthen  the  ap- 
praising force,  or  simplify  the  things  to  be  done  by  importers  and  cus- 
toms officers,  but  of  endeavoring,  on  the  contrary,  to  enforce  the  col- 
lection of  existing  rates  by  new  and  severe  coercive  laws,  is  set  forth  in 
the  Bill  now  before  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate,  “to  prevent 
frauds  upon  the  Customs  Bevenue.77  I desire  to  call  attention  to  that 
proposed  legislation,  not  only  because  it  so  clearly  shows  the  direction 
in  which  Congress  must  go  if  coercion  rather  than  tariff-reform  is  to  be 
the  policy,  but  because  it  enables  me  to  exhibit  the  executive  aspect  of 
the  tariff  problem,  with  which  aspect  I am  now  chiefly  concerned. 

The  Bill  which  is  now  before  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate, 
is  in  these  words : 

Section  1.  That  whenever  the  dutiable  or  foreign  market  value  of 
any  article  of  merchandise  imported  into  the  United  States,  and  subject 
to  “ad  valorem77  duty,  or  to  duty  based  in  whole  or  in  part  on  values, 
is  found  by  the  appraising  officer  to  exceed  the  invoice  or  entered  value 
thereof,  whether  such  invoice  or  entered  value  shall  be  set  forth  in  a 
certified  invoice,  a “pro  forma77  invoice,  or  in  a statement  in  the  form 
of  an  invoice,  there  shall  be  levied,  collected  and  paid  in  addition  to 
the  duties  now  imposed  by  law  on  such  merchandise  a further  sum  equal 
to  2 per  cent,  of  the  total  appraised  value  for  each  1 per  cent,  of  the 
increased  valuation  as  ascertained  by  the  appraisers  in  excess  of  the 
entered  value ; and  if  such  appraised  value  shall  exceed  the  entered 
value  more  than  15  per  cent,  the  entry  shall  be  deemed  fraudulent,  and 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XXIX 


the  collector  of  customs  shall  seize  such  merchandise  and  proceed  as  in 
cases  of  forfeiture  for  violations  of  the  customs  laws. 

Sec.  2.  That  in  addition  to  the  methods  now  authorized  by  law  for 
determining  actual  foreign  market  or  dutiable  value,  and  to  assist  in 
the  ascertainment  of  such  value  in  the  appraisal  or  reappraisement  of 
any  article  of  imported  merchandise,  wholly  or  partially  manufactured, 
and  subject  to  “ad  valorem77  duty  or  to  duty  based  in  whole  or  in  part 
on  values,  when  such  merchandise  has  been  consigned  by  any  person 
or  persons  in  any  other  country  to  a person  or  persons,  agent,  partner 
or  consignee  in  the  United  States,  or  has  been  obtained  otherwise  than 
by  actual  purchase  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  appraiser  or  appraisers  to  determine,  first,  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction of  such  merchandise  at  the  time  and  place  of  manufacture,  such 
cost  of  production  to  include  cost  of  materials  and  manufacture,  all  in- 
cidental expenses,  insurance,  interest,  commissions,  superintendence, 
rent,  depreciation  of  plant,  finishing  and  preparation  for  shipment,  and 
a reasonable  profit  for  manufacture  not  less  than  10  per  centum,  and, 
second,  the  home  value  of  such  merchandise,  which  shall  be  ascertained 
by  deducting  from  the  wholesale  price  thereof  in  the  principal  markets 
of  the  United  States  the  amount  of  duties  thereon  and  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation from  the  last  port  of  exportation  to  the  port  of  importation, 
and  in  no  case  shall  the  dutiable  value  of  such  merchandise  be  appraised 
upon  original  appraisal  or  reappraisement  at  less  than  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction or  the  home  value  thereof,  ascertained  as  herein  provided. 

Sec.  3.  That  if  any  owner,  consignee  or  agent  of  any  merchandise 
subject  to  ad  valorem  duty  or  to  duty  based  in  whole  or  in  part  on  value 
shall  knowingly  make  or  attempt  to  make  an  entry  thereof  by  means  of 
any  false  invoice  or  false  certificate,  of  a consul,  vice-consul  or  com- 
mercial agent,  or  of  any  invoice  which  does  not  contain  a true  statement 
of  the  actual  cost  of  such  merchandise  if  purchased  or  if  obtained  other- 
wise than  by  purchase  of  the  actual  market  value  thereof  at  the  time  of 
exportation  to  the  United  States,  in  the  principal  markets  of  the  country 
from  whence  the  same  has  been  exported  or  by  means  of  any  other  false 
or  fraudulent  document  or  paper,  or  by  means  of  any  other  false  or 
fraudulent  practice  or  appliance  whatsoever  such  merchandise  or  the 
value  thereof  shall  be  forfeited  to  the  United  States. 

Sec.  4.  That  one-half  of  all  moneys  which  shall  be  hereafter  paid  into 
the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  from  fines,  penalties  or  forfeitures  in- 
curred for  violations  of  the  customs- revenue  laws,  shall  constitute  a fund 
from  which  may  be  paid  from  time  to  time,  on  the  joint  order  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Secretary  of  State,  who  are  hereby 
created  a board  for  this  purpose,  such  sums  as  they  may  in  their  dis- 
cretion determine,  to  meritorious  officers  of  the  customs  or  consular 
service  who  shall  have  been  instrumental  in  the  detection  or  punish- 
ment of  frauds  upon  the  customs  revenue,  and  the  Board  thereby  created 
shall  annually  make  a report  of  their  doings  hereunder  to  Congress, 
stating  in  detail  the  names  of  parties  to  whom  has  been  paid,  their 
positions  io  the  public  service,  the  nature  of  the  services  rendered,  and 
amount  paid  to  each.  , 

Sec.  5.  That  the  sixteenth  section  of  the  act  entitled  ‘ ‘ An  act  to 
amend  the  cnstoms-re venue  laws  and  to  repeal  moieties,77  approved 
June  22,  1874,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  repealed.  And  in  all  suits  or 
informations  brought  where  any  seizure  is  made  pursuant  to  any  act 
providing  for  or  regulating  the  collection  of  duties  on  imports  or  ton- 


XXX 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


nage,  if  the  property  is  claimed  by  any  person,  the  burden  of  proof 
shall  lie  upon  such  claimant,  provided  that  probable  cause  is  shown  for 
such  prosecution  to  be  judged  of  by  the  courts. 

Sec.  6.  That  all  acts  and  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  with  this  act  are 
hereby  repealed. 

First  section. — I respectfully  invite  a consideration  of  the  question 
whether  confusion  and  difficulty  may  not  arise  in  the  execution  of  the 
first  part  of  this  .section  if  it  shall  become  a law.  Under  our  existing 
system  there  is  the  certified  invoice  value,  which  is  the  minimum  value 
for  imposing  ad  valorem  duties.  There  is  the  entered  value,  which,  when 
greater  than  the  invoice  value,  defines  a line  of  value  below  which 
the  Collector  cannot  levy  ad  valorem  rates.  There  is  the  market 
value  to  be  ascertained  and  reported  by  the  appraising  officers.  And 
finally,  there  is  the  dutiable  value,  the  decision  of  which  by  the  Collector 
under  general  instructions  by  the  Head  of  this  Department  is  by  law 
made  final  and  conclusive  unless  certain  steps  be  taken  by  the  importer. 
Section  seven  of  the  Tariff  act  of  1883  (which  section  has  recently  been 
before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  for  interpretation)  con- 
cerns market  and  dutiable  value.  There  are  other  provisions  of  law, 
scattered  here  and  there  throughout  the  statutes,  which,  under  certain 
conditions,  may  make  the  dutiable  value  unlike  the  market  value  in  the 
principal  markets  of  the  country  of  exportation,  which  is  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  the  appraisers,  and  to  which  last  value  I assume  the  first 
section  refers  when  it  uses  the  phrase  “Foreign  market  value.”  Sec- 
tion 2900  of  the  Revised  Statutes  inflicts  a penal  duty  whenever  the 
appraised  (not  dutiable)  value  shall  exceed  by  ten  per  centum  or  more 
the  entered,  value.  But  the  section  of  the  proposed  bill  now  under  con- 
sideration makes  a change  by  levying  the  penal  duty  whenever  the 
“appraising  officers”  shall  find  that  the  dutiable  value  shall  exceed  the 
entered  value. 

The  language  used  in  describing,  and  defining,  the  rate  or  amount  of 
additional  duty  Avould  be  more  satisfactory  if  it  indicated  to  importers, 
and  to  the  country,  more  clearly  what  the  ratio  of  that  additional  duty 
will  be.  The  “total  appraised  value,”  referred  to  in  the  first  section, 
may  not  be  the  same  as  dutiable  value,  but  is  the  entered  value  to  be 
compared,  in  the  infliction  of  a penalty,  with  the  appraised  value,  as 
found  by  the  appraisers,  or  with  the  dutiable  value,  as  finally  decided  by 
the  Collector,  and  against  which  a protest,  appeal  and  suit  can  be  applied  ! 

RESPONSIBILITY  FOR  SEIZURES. 

The  last  clause  of  the  first  section  covers  a large  range  of  inquiry, 
not  only  into  the  existing  law  but  into  the  existing  machinery  for  its 
enforcement.  The  legal  effect,  in  practical  administration,  of  the  last 
clause  of  the  first  section  of  the  proposed  bill,  if  it  shall  become  a law, 
will  be,  to  require  the  Collector  to  seize  all  merchandise  embraced 
in  an  entry  whenever  the  appraising  officer  shall  report  to  him  an 
appraised  value  which  shall  exceed  the  entered  value  by  more  than 
fifteen  per  cent. , and  to  report  the  seizure  to  the  District  Attorney  for 
prosecution.  The  section  does  not  declare  distinctly  whether  the  Col- 
lector shall  seize  upon  a report  by  the  local  appraiser,  or  whether  he 
shall  await  a reappraisal,  or  whether  if  the  two  reappraisers  disagree  he 
shall  await  his  own  decision  between  them.  If  the  law  commands  the 
Collector  to  seize  merchandise  on  a report  to  him  by  an  appraising 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XXXI 


officer  of  a specific  fact,  to  wit,  a difference  of  fifteen  per  centum  between 
the  entered  and  the  appraised  value  of  merchandise,  then  the  Collector 
should  not  be  held  responsible  in  damages  for  the  consequences  of  the 
seizure. 

The  fifth  section  of  the  proposed  law  provides  for  burden  of  proof 
in  case  probable  cause  is  shown  for  the  prosecution.  But#  if  the  law 
peremptorily  commands  the  Collector  to  seize,  it  is  to  be  inferred  that 
no  Court  will  say  that  a probable  cause  did  not  exist  for  a seizure  specifi- 
cally commanded  by  the  law.  What  will  be  the  effect  of  the  proposed 
first  section,  on  a trial  for  forfeiture  under  a seizure  made  in  obedience 
to  the  section'?  The  third  section  punishes  by  forfeiture  an  entry 
“knowingly  made  or  attempted  to  be  made  by  a false  invoice.”  Is  not 
the  jury  to  pass  upon  the  question  of  guilty  knowledge!  But  if  the  law 
declares  that  every  entry  of  merchandise  “shall  be  deemed  fraudulent” 
if  the  appraised  value  shall  exceed  the  entered  value  by  more  than  fif- 
teen per  cent.,  what  discretion  will  be  left  to  the  jury  if  the  evidence 
shall  be  that  the  appraised  value  did  thus  exceed  the  entered  value!  I 
shall  return  to  this  branch  of  the  subject  again  when  I come  to  consider 
the  second  section.  Is  it  probable  that  appraising  officers  will  advance 
values  above  fifteen  per  cent,  if  they  realize  that  such  important  con- 
sequences as  forfeiture  of  the  merchandise  will  follow!  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  the  first  section  does  not  require  appraising  officers  to 
inquire  into  the  intent  with  which  the  invoice  was  made  and  the  entry 
w^as  presented,  but  the  proposed  law  infers  a fraudulent  intent  from  the 
finding  by  appraising  officers  of  value  greater  by  fifteen  per  cent,  than 
the  entered  value.  If  this  section  shall  become  a law,  may  not  merchan- 
dise be  forfeited  without  anybody,  or  any  tribunal,  considering,  or 
deciding,  the  question  of  guilty  knowledge  and  criminal  intention! 

It  will  not  escape  the  attention  of  Congress  that  the  first  section  of 
the  proposed  bill  requires  the  Collector  to  levy  and  enforce  the  pay- 
ment of  the  regular  duty,  and  the  penal  or  additional  duty  prescribed 
therein.  The  third  section  enforces  a forfeiture  under  the  condi- 
tions herein  prescribed,  and  requires  a suit  to  be  begun  against 
the  person  having  made  the  entry  to  recover  the  value  of  the  merchan- 
dise if  the  same  cannot  be  proceeded  against  “in  remf  but  does  the 
bill  contemplate  that  the  forfeiture  shall  be  in  addition  to  the  regular 
duty  and  penal  duty  which  may  already  have  been  paid!  If  the  mer- 
chandise shall  have  passed  out  of  the  possession  of  the  Government, 
and  is  seized,  or,  if  the  merchandise  cannot  be  found  and  a suit  be 
brought  to  forfeit  the  value,  then  of  course  both  the  regular  and  penal 
duty  will  have  been  paid  thereon.  If  it  be  the  intention  of  the  law 
that,  in  case  of  forfeiture,  the  penal  duty,  and  the  regular  duty,  shall 
be  returned  to  the  person  making  the  entry,  there  should  be  a provision 
in  the  law  authorizing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  draw  his  war- 
rant for  the  duties  to  be  returned ! 

PRO  FORMA  INVOICES. 

In  the  volume  of  documents  transmitted  to  Congress  with  my  Annual 
Beport  on  “The  Collection  of  Duties,”  will  be  found  (pp.  65,  591,  675) 
a reference  to  the  manner  in  which  Sections  9,  10,  and  11  of  the  * 4 Anti- 
Moiety  Law”  of  June  22d,  1874,  have  been  used  to  defraud  the  revenue 
by  the  presentation  of  what  have  come  to  be  called  “pro  forma  in- 
voices.” From  the  enactment  of  that  law  up  to  October,  1878,  an 


XXXII  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


entry  by  pro  forma  invoice  was  treated,  as  to  its  liability  to  penal  duty, 
as  an  entry  made  on  the  original  invoice  under  Section  2900  of  the  Re- 
vised Statutes.  During  the  last  named  year,  an  importation  of  dia- 
monds having  been  made  in  the  port  of  New  York  unaccompanied  by 
a certified  invoice,  the  importer  was  permitted  by  the  Collector,  under 
the  law  of  1874,  to  present  “a  statement  in  the  form  of  an  invoice,” 
purporting  to  show  the  foreign  value  of  the  diamonds  at  21,550  francs. 
They  were  appraised  at  27,264.45  francs,  and  thereupon  the  additional 
duty  of  twenty  per  cent,  was  levied  by  the  Collector  under  Section 
2900  of  the  Revised  Statutes.  The  importers  insisted  that  this  section 
did  not  apply,  inasmuch  as  the  statement,  “in  the  form  of  an  invoice,” 
which  accompanied  their  entry,  was  not  an  “original  invoice”  within 
the  meaning  of  Section  2900.  The  question  was  referred  by  this  De- 
partment to  the  Attorney-General  for  advice,  who,  in  an  opinion 
dated  October  4th,  1878,  upheld  the  contention  of  the  importers.  He 
advised  the  Department  that  the  law  of  1874  initiated  a mode  of 
procedure  entirely  distinct  from  that  described  in  Section  2900  of 
the  Revised  Statutes,  inasmuch  as  the  former  contains  no  provision 
for  an  addition  to  the  entry.  He  suggested  that  if  the  importer  had 
presented  the  statement  “in  the  form  of  an  invoice,”  with  intent  to 
defraud  the  revenue,  the  importer  could  be  criminally  punished  and 
the  diamonds  forfeited,  under  the  twelfth  section  of  the  Act  of  1874.  As 
a consequence,  the  number  of  pro  forma  invoices  presented  at  the  port 
of  New  York,  during  the  year  1884,  was  nearly  30,000,  of  which  more 
than  1, 7 00  covered  merchandise  valued  at  more  than  $100.  When  my 
attention  was  called  to  this  condition  of  affairs  I invited  the  Attorney  - 
General  to  reconsider  the  opinion  of  his  predecessor,  Mr.  Devens,  but 
on  August  27th,  1885,  the  Department  of  Justice  sustained  the  previous 
opinion.  According  to  the  law,  as  it  stood  prior  to  1884,  only  the  Head 
of  this  Department  could  authorize  an  entry  without  the  production  of 
a certified  invoice  unless  the  value  of  the  importation  might  be  less 
than  $100,  in  which  case  the  Collector  could  admit  it  to  entry  without 
the  production  of  the  triplicate  invoice  and  without  submitting  the 
question  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  if  the  Collector  “is  satisfied 
that  the  neglect  to  produce  such  invoice  was  unintentional,  and  that 
the  importation  was  made  in  good  faith,  and  without  any  purpose  to 
defraud,  or  evade,  the  revenue  laws.”  But  the  law  of  1874  gave  to  the 
Collector  discretion  in  the  execution  of  Sections  9,  10,  and  11.  The 
facts  clearly  show  that  the  law  of  1874  was  inconsiderately  and  care- 
lessly administered.  Such  inefficiency  at  the  several  ports  may  now 
exist,  but  this  Department  is  unable  to  sufficiently  guard  against  it. 
My  own  opinion,  when  my  attention  was  first  called  to  the  question, 
was,  and  it  now  is,  that  the  twenty  per  cent,  penalty  is  applicable  to 
an  entry  made  under  the  sections  of  the  law  of  1874  to  which  I have 
referred,  and  for  the  reason  that  the  last-named  law  does  not  repeal 
the  last  clause  in  Section  2900  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  which  declares 
that:  “The  duties  shall  not,  however,  be  assessed  upon  an  amount 
less  than  the  invoice  or  entered  value.”  That  declaration  seems  to 
me  to  be  an  independent  requirement,  not  depending  upon  the  pre- 
vious provisions  of  the  section.  Originally  the  law  declared,  as  has 
been  shown,  that  the  duty  shall  not  be  assessed  upon  the  amount  less  than 
the  “invoice”  value,  but  later  on  the  law  said  that  the  duty  shall  not  be 
assessed  upon  less  than  the  “entered”  value.  The  words  “invoice” 
and  “entered,”  are  not  in  that  connection,  as  it  seems  to  me,  used  as 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XXXIII 


synonymous  words.  If  tliey  who  prepared  the  Revised  Statutes  had 
taken  Section  2900  literally  from  the  Statute  of  1865,  which  the  Revised 
Statutes  professed  to  re-enact,  the  question  would  have  been  more  free 
from  difficulty,  inasmuch  as  the  law  of  1865  declares : “The  duty  shall 
not  be  assessed  upon  an  amount  less  than  the  invoice  or  entered  value, 
any  Act  of  Congress  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.'’'1 

For  all  these  reasons  it  has  happened  that  the  Government  has  neither 
collected  twenty  per  cent,  penal  duty,  nor  prosecuted  the  importers  or 
merchandise  for  fraudulent  undervaluation.  The  evil  can,  however, 
be  easily  remedied  by  repealing  the  obnoxious  sections  in  the  law  of 
1874. 

REORGANIZATION  OF  THE  APPRAISING  DEPARTMENT. 

Second  Section. — This  section  implies  that  dutiable  value  is  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  the  appraising  officers  and  not  by  the  Collector.  It  does  not 
apply  to  merchandise  that  has  been  purchased  “in  the  ordinary  course 
of  business.77  It  applies  to  merchandise  obtained  by  gift,  or  finding, 
as  well  as  by  manufacture.  It  applies  to  diamonds,  and  precious 
stones,  if  not  obtained  by  purchase.  The  inquiries  and  decision  are 
novel,  which  the  appraising  officers  will,  under  it,  be  required  to  make 
in  order  to  determine  the  value  on  which  the  rates  of  duty  shall  be 
levied  by  the  Collector.  It  requires  the  appraising  officers  to  ascertain 
and  determine  not  only  the  cost  of  production  of  each  article,  not  ob- 
tained “by  actual  purchase  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business,  but 
the  home  value77  in  the  principal  markets  of  our  own  country.  It 
makes  either  the  former  or  the  latter  a minimum  value. 

I deem  it  my  duty  most  urgently  to  suggest  the  inquiry  whether 
or  not  the  appraising  department  of  the  Government  at  New  York,  or 
in  any  other  of  the  collection  districts,  is  equipped,  or  can  be  equipped, 
under  the  existing  law,  for  making  these  two  inquiries.  Under  the 
section  the  appraising  officers  must  ascertain  the  cost  of  material, 
insurance,  interest,  commissions,  superintendence,  rents,  the  deprecia- 
tion of  plant,  and  a reasonable  profit  for  manufacture,  in  a business 
carried  on  in  a foreign  country,  three,  or  four,  or  possibly  five  thousand, 
miles  away.  Not  only  are  the  local  appraisers  to  ascertain  these  facts, 
but  their  decisions  will,  under  the  existing  law,  be  subject  to  re-ex  - 
ination  on  reappraisement,  and  again  to  re-examination  by  the  Col- 
lector if  the  reappraisers  shall  disagree  in  regard  to  any  of  these 
occult  Elements.  I am  aware  that  the  tendency  of  recent  legislation, 
and  notably  that  in  respect  to  gloves,  in  1873,  which  is  contained 
in  section  2913  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  also  that  contained  in 
the  ninth  section  of  the  tariff  act  of  1883,  has  been  to  require,  or 
permit,  appraising  officers  to  ascertain  market  value  by  other  tests 
than  the  price  at  which  similar  goods  are  bought  or  sold,  or  are 
held  for  sale,  by  the  owner,  or  the  price  whi*ch  he  expects  to  re- 
ceive therefor,  at  his  own  place  of  business,  after  sale  in  the  United 
States.  The  execution  of  both  these  enactments  has  given  much  em- 
barrassment to  this  Department.  As  an  Appendix  to  this  communica- 
tion (marked  A)  I transmit  a copy  of  a Circular  Letter  issued  by  this 
Department  on  July  7th,  1883,  immediately  after  the  enactment  of  the 
tariff  law  of  that  year.  I think  the  effect  of  requiring  appraising  offi- 
cers to  determine  market  value  by  ascertaining  the  cost  of  production 
will  result  in  a litigious  controversy,  in  nearly  every  case,  over  such 

S.  Ex.  72- 


■iii 


XXXIV  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


cost,  and  that  the  Appraising  Department,  as  at  present  organized,  is 
not  adapted  for  such  an  inquiry. 

The  second  branch  of  the  proposed  new  system,  which  requires  the 
appraising  officers  to  ascertain  “the  home  value  of  imported  mer- 
chandise in  the  principal  markets  of  the  United  States,*7  will  be,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  quite  as  difficult.  Which  Avill  be  the  “principal 
markets  of  the  United  States77  for  merchandise  imported  into  Alaska? 
Will  not  the  market-places  vary  with  the  character  of  the  merchandise? 
The  Constitution  ordains  that  u all  duties,  imposts  and  excises,  shall  be 
uniform  throughout  the  United  States.77  But  how  can  that  constitu- 
tional requirement  be  obeyed  if  duties  are  to  be  levied  on  the  “home 
value77  as  defined  by  the  second  section  of  the  proposed  law?  Will  it 
be  possible  that  duties  on  similar  merchandise  entered  at  Eastport  in 
Maine,  at  New  York,  New  Orleans,  San  Francisco,  Portland  in  Oregon, 
and  Alaska,  can  be  uniform.  If  the  duty  is  finally  determined  by 
the  Collector,  how  can  the  appraising  officers  in  advance  of  his  deter- 
mination conveniently  deduct  the  amount  of  duties  from  the  “home 
value77  ascertained  by  them?  If  cost  of  production,  or  home  value,  is 
to  determine  dutiable  value,  ought  not  the  importer  to  be  permitted  to 
declare  his  appreciation  of  one  or  the  other  in  his  invoice  or  entry  ? 
Will  not  home  value  in  the  end  be  largely  determined  by  foreign  value? 
Shall  silk  goods,  imported  at  St.  Louis,  pay  fifty  per  centum  upon  their 
value  at  Boston,  or  at  New  York?  In  a word,  does  not  the  second  re- 
quirement in  the  second  section  bring  to  the  front  the  constitutional 
and  other  objections  which  apply  to  any  and  every  ad  valorem  system 
based  on  home  valuations? 

The  present  magnitude  of  appraising  work  at  the  port  of  New  York 
is  not,  I fear,  correctly  and  sufficiently  appreciated,  either  by  legislators, 
or  by  the  public  at  large.  It  certainly  was  not  appreciated  by  me 
until  I came  to  be  responsible,  in  some  measure,  for  its  proper  per- 
formance. 

The  tariff  law  of  1883  divides  and  classifies  imported  merchandise 
into  fourteen  schedules.  The  following  tabular  statement  showing  the 
value  of  the  merchandise  entered  for  consumption  (including  entries 
for  immediate  consumption  and  withdrawals  from  warehouse  for  con- 
sumption) at  the  port  of  New  York,  during  the  fiscal  year  ended  June 
30th,  1885,  may  assist  Congress  to  realize  the  proportions  of  the  Goy- 
ernment  business  transacted  at  that  port. 


Schedule  of  the  Tariff  Act  of  March  3,  1883. 

Values. 

• 

Regular  Duty 
Collected. 

Free  list 

Dollars. 

121,362,360 

Dollars. 

A Chemical  products 

9. 817, 589 

3,023,115  05 
4,069,394  53 

B Earthenware  &c 

7,401. 146 

c Metals p 

20. 319. 671 

7,276,200  14 

D Wooden  ware 

1 . 019, 080 

303, 146  36 
36, 003, 879  76 
4.  810. 313  65 

E Suo'ar  

49. 275, 608 

6,366,161 
16, 298, 027 

Gr  Provisions  

4,667.275  14 

jj  Liquors  

5,965,737 

4,374,621  11 
8,873.004  86 
6,691,250  04 
19,564,086  84 
12,782,237  81 
852, 468  55 
9,256,209  15 
188, 594  09 

I Cottons  

22,186,738 

j Hemp  and  flax  goods  

24, 187, 052 

Wool  and  wool  Ions 

30, 932, 763 

L Silk  and  silk  goods 

25,  994, 740 

Books  

3, 382, 446 

N Sundries  

37, 669. 488 

Non-cnumenited  (Section  2513  Revised  Statutes) 

474,410 

Total  

382, 653, 016 

122, 635, 797  08 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XXXV 


The  sum  total  of  the  schedules  shows  that  merchandise  of  the  value 
of  $382*653,016  was  received,  examined,  and  delivered  at  the  port  of 
New  York  during  the  last  fiscal  year,  and  that  $122,635,797  were 
actually  levied  and  collected  thereon.  It  is  believed  that  no  other 
government,  no  other  port  or  metropolis,  can  exhibit,  during  that  year, 
such  an  enormous  volume  of  government  business  of  a similar  character 
as  was  transacted  at  the  port  of  New  York. 

It  may  be  useful  to  add  that,  throughout  the  whole  country  and  in 
all  the  collection  districts,  the  relation  of  ad  valorem  to  specific  rates, 
in  the  full  amount  of  duty  collected  during  the  fiscal  year  ended  June 


30th,  1885,  was  : 

Ad  valorem $54,  337,  089 

Ad  valorem  portion  of  the  compound  rate 14,  728,  481 


$69,  065, 570 

Or  38.9  per  cent. 


Specific $95,  679,  370 

Specific  portion  of  the  compound  rate 12,  574,  610 


$108,  253,  980 

Or  61.1  per  cent. 

If  any  importing  house,  or  if  any  number  of  importing  houses,  had 
received,  handled  and  sold  such  an  enormous  quantity  of  most  valuable 
merchandise,  of  every  variety  of  fabric  and  form,  I think  it  can  be 
safely  said  that  the  conveniences,  facilities  and  machinery  for  the 
transaction  of  such  business  would  not  have  been  like  those  which  this 
Government  has  used,  and  is  using,  at  the  port  of  Now  York,  as  regards 
the  building,  or  buildings,  in  which  this  vast  quantity  of  merchandise 
has  been  examined  and  appraised,  the  conveniences  of  space,  air, 
light  and  other  arrangements  tending  to  promote  accuracy  and  prevent 
confusion,  to  say  nothing  of  the  number,  qualification,  character  and 
compensation  of  the  agents  employed. 

The  business  of  receiving,  carting,  examining,  appraising,  warehous- 
ing and  delivering  imported  merchandise  at  the  port  of  New  York,  is 
fairly  divisible  into  three  subdivisions.  There  are  the  buildings  in 
which  are  the  offices  of  the  Collector,  Naval  Officer  and  Surveyor, 
wherein  ’clerical  work,  and  work  of  general  administration,  are  con- 
ducted. There  are  the  warehouses  in  which  the  merchandise  is  re- 
ceived and  stored,  with  its  complement  of  storekeepers,  including  the 
business  of  cartage.  There  is  such  work  as  is  done  out  of  doors,  on  the 
wharves,  in  weighing,  gauging,  measuring — which  is  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  Surveyor.  And  finally  there  is,  at  the  port  of  New  York, 
in  buildings  separate  and  apart  from  the  premises  just  described — the 
appraisers’  stores,  where  all  the  vast  and  intricate  work  of  ascertaining 
foreign  values  is  carried  on.  These  appraisers’  stores  are  not  owned 
by  the  Government,  but  a rental  is  paid  therefor.  The  whole  cost  of 
the  appraising  force  at  New  York,  including  appraisers,  examiners, 
openers,  packers,  clerks,  messengers,  laborers  and  cartage,  during  the 
last  fiscal  year,  is  exhibited  in  the  accompanying  document  “Ex- 
hibit B.” 

I have  in  my  Annual  Report  already  alluded  to  this  subject,  and  to 
the  inadequate  character  of  the  force  employed.  The  present  Appraiser 


XXXVI  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


at  New  York,  who  is  at  the  head  of  this  enormous  appraising  establish- 
ment, or  rather  at  the  head  of  the  force  appraising  such  an  enormous 
quantity  of  merchandise,  is,  I believe,  a competent,  upright  and  coura- 
geous officer.  He  has  experience,  zeal  and  fidelity.  His  salary  is 
four  thousand  dollars  a year,  and,  small  as  it  is,  it  is  the  largest  paid  to 
any  of  the  appraising  officers  at  that  port.  The  work  of  administration, 
supervision,  examination  and  actual  appraisement,  placed  upon  him  by 
the  statute,  would  be  altogether  beyond  the  power  of  any  one  man  even 
if  the  working  hours  of  a day  were  an  hundred  instead  of  eight  or  ten, 
and  if  he  had  the  physical  endurance  therefor.  He  is  responsible,  in 
theory,  for  the  examination  and  appraisement  of  each  and  every  article 
under  all  the  fourteen  schedules.  But  good  administration  of  such  an 
ad  valorem  system  as  ours  requires  that  there  be  over  each  of  the  sched- 
ules as  competent  an  appraising  officer,  whose  salary,  if  the  work  be 
courageously  and  conscientiously  performed,  cannot,  I had  almost  said, 
be  too  large.  And  as  no  one  man  can,  in  person,  examine  and  appraise 
each  and  all  of  the  articles  in  each  schedule,  there  is  needed  over  eabh 
one  of  the  schedules  subordinate  appraisers,  and  examiners,  whose  apti- 
tude and  discrimination  in  the  comparison  of  one  fabric  with  another  in 
order  to  ascertain  foreign  value,  should  command  a much  larger  salary 
than  is  now  paid  to  any  member  of  our  appraising  force. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  what  an  appraiser,  under  our  system, 
is  required  to  ascertain,  is  all  the  facts  in  regard  to  values,  and  to  as- 
certain them  as  they  exist  not  in  one’s  own  city  or  locality,  but  in 
places  removed  by  many  thousand  miles.  The  conclusions  must  neces- 
sarily be  inferences  from  relevant  facts.  To  perform  that  kind  of  work 
successfully,  one  may  require  facilities  different  from  those  required 
for  successful  buying  and  selling. 

If  our  present  ad  valorem  system  is  to  be  continued,  if  there  is  not 
to  be  a large  substitution  of  specific  for  ad  valorem  rates,  our  existing 
appraising  system  should  be  reformed  and  enlarged.  Still  more  neces- 
sary will  such  reformation  and  enlargement  be  if  the  requirements  of 
the  second  section  of  the  proposed  bill  are  to  be  successfully  enforced. 

I fear  that  even  so  large  reduction  as  by  one-half  of  the  existing  ad 
valorem  rates  would  not  do  away  with  the  necessity  for  such  reforma- 
tion and  enlargement.  I have  shown  what  happened  in  1817, 1840,  and 
1857  when  ad  valorem  rates  were  not  as  high  by  one-half  or  two-tliirds 
as  now.  Whatever  successful  contrivances  are  in  operation  to-day  to 
evade  the  reven ue  by  false  invoices,  or  by  undervaluations,  or  by  any  other 
means,  under  an  ad  valorem  system,  will  not  cease  even  if  the  ad  valo- 
rem rates  shall  have  been  largely  reduced.  They  are  incontestably,  they 
are  even  notoriously  inherent  in  that  system.  And  while  no  system, 
not  even  that  of  specific  rates  is  free  from  its  own  especial  difficulties, 
which  in  that  case  are  rather  difficulties  of  impact  and  of  distribution 
than  difficulties  of  administration,  it  is  my  plain  duty  to  set  before  Con- 
gress the  nature  and  full  extent  of  those  difficulties  which  environ  the 
administration  of  such  laws  as  now  exist  upon  our  statute-books,  ac- 
companied by  the  ad  valorem  war  rates  of  our  present  tariff  and  im- 
pinging upon  4,000  different  articles. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XXXVII 


DIFFICULTIES  IN  REAPPRAISEMENTS. 

But  the  difficulties  do  not  end  with  what  is  called,  in  revenue  law, 
the  local  appraisement,  or  the  first  appraisement.  The  importer  can 
ask  a reappraisement  and  one  of  those  reappraisers  must  he  a merchant 
familiar  with  the  character,  quantity  and  foreign  value  of  the  mer- 
chandise to  he  appraised.  What  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Crawford,  said 
in  1817,  about  merchant  appraisers  under  that  system,  applies  with 
equal  force  to  the  one  merchant  of  the  reappraising  board  under  the 
present  system.  The  General  Appraiser  at  New  York  receives  a salary 
of  three  thousand  dollars,  a mere  pittance  for  one  who  is  really  com- 
petent for  such  work  and  such  responsibility.  Indeed  the  salary  may 
almost  be  said  to  imply  unfitness.  There  have  been  during  many  years, 
and  are  now,  as  I am  informed,  criticism  and  complaint  of  the  manner 
in  which  reappraisements  have  been  made  and  are  conducted  at  New 
York.  Here  again  such  criticism  and  complaint  are  inseparable  from  the 
system.  The  reappraising  board  consists  of  only  two  members, — one  of 
whom,  the  merchant  appraiser,  is  selected  by  the  Collector.  His  service 
is  made  compulsory  by  punitive  provisions  of  law.  His  compensation 
for  the  service  is  trifling.  The  range  and  number  of  persons,  even  at 
the  great  port  of  New  York,  who  come  within  the  definition  and  quali- 
fications of  the  statute,  are  not  large,  because  the  merchant  appraiser 
must  be  an  expert  in  the  particular  article  under  appraisal.  The  ser- 
vice is  of  course  not  desired,  and  for  the  reason  given  by  Mr.  Crawford 
not  far  from  three-quarters  of  a century  ago,  which  was  that  the  service 
brings  the  merchant  into  disagreeable  relations  with  his  associates, 
or  rivals,  who  import,  and  deal  in,  a similar  article.  As  the  board  of 
reappraisers  consists  of  only  two,  there  is  often  an  inability  to  come 
to  a decision,  and  then  the  whole  question  of  foreign  value  goes  to  the 
Collector,  who,  although  he  may  be  competent  as  Collector,  may  not 
be,  in  all  particulars,  suitable  for  the  decision  of  such  a question.  It 
is  not  easy  to  think  of  a tribunal  more  unsuitably  organized  to  execute 
the  provisions  of  the  second  section  of  the  proposed  bill  than  is  a re- 
appraising board  as  at  present  constituted. 

There  is  another  consideration  connected  with  the  organization  and 
conduct  of  a reappraising  board  which  will  I am  sure  commend  itself 
to  the  consideration  of  Congress.  If  the  forms  of  law  are  pursued 
by  appraising  officers,  and  if  there  is  no  fraud  on  the  part  either  of 
the  importer  or  of  the  appraising  officers,  then  there  is  no  officer,  or 
tribunal,  executive  or  judicial,  to  revise  the  decision  as  to  value.  The 
decision  of  the  Collector,  as  to  classification,  or  rate,  or  amount  of  duty 
can  be  revised,  and  set  aside,  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  the 
Judicial  Department  of  the  Government.  While  the  law  has  not  made 
appraising  officers  to  be  judicial  officers  in  a constitutional  sense,  it  has 
required  of  them  the  exercise  of  very  large  and  high  faculties  of  discre- 
tion and  judgment.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has,  for 
that  reason,  on  several  occasions  heretofore  spoken  of  a reappraising 
officer  as  a “quasi  judge,7’  and  “a  legislative  referee.77  Many  of 
these  phrases,  which  imply  that  a reappraisement  is  a judicial  proceed- 
ing, had  their  origin  when  the  appraising  law,  differed  widely  and  es- 
sentially from  the  present  law,  and  when  an  appraisement  partook 
more  than  now  of  the  character  of  an  arbitration.  These,  and  similar 
expressions  used  by  the  Federal  Judges,  from  time  to  time,  consti- 
tuted almost  the  only  basis  of  the  contention  that  was  addressed  to  me, 


XXXVIII  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

during  the  last  summer,  to  the  effect  that  an  importer  had  a right  to  be 
present  at  a reappraisement,  to  confront  opposing  witnesses  by  testimony 
in  his  own  behalf,  to  sift,  test  and  reduce  by  cross-examination  testimony 
offered  in  opposition  to  the  correctness  of  his  invoice,  and  to  have  the 
aid  of  counsel.  As  I have  explained  in  my  Annual  Report,  I felt  con- 
strained to  resist  this  contention,  and  chiefly  because  it  is  impracticable 
for  reappraisements  to  be  carried  on  in  the  forms  and  manner  of  a law- 
suit. But,  having  decided  that  an  importer  is  not  entitled  of  right  to 
be  represented  on  a reappraisement  by  a lawyer,  I stopped  the  practice 
which,  to  some  extent,  had  prevailed  by  whiclt  Special  Agents  of  this 
Department  appeared  before  the  reappraising  board  in  opposition  to 
importers,  and  thus  brought  on  a contentious  litigation.  The  integrity 
of  the  appraising  system,  and  justice  to  importers  as  well  as  the  Gov- 
ernment, demand  that  the  reappraising  board  shall  be  exempt  from 
all  undue  outside  influence,  whether  exerted  by  importers  or  manu- 
facturers, or  this  Department,  when  the  question  of  foreign  value  is 
alone  to  be  determined. 

One  who  is  at  the  head  of  this  Department  cannot  shut  his  eyes  to 
the  fact  that  a great  deal  of  the  contention  over  local  appraisements,  or 
reappraisements,  grows  out  not  merely  of  strife  between  rival  importers, 
but  between  our  own  manufacturers,  or  their  representatives,  and  for- 
eign manufacturers,  or  their  representatives,  who  consign  goods  hither 
for  sale  on  their  account.  A question  has  recently  been  presented  to 
me  by  protest  and  appeal,  whether  or  not  a manufacturer  in  this  country, 
not  being  an  importer,  is  competent,  within  the  law,  to  sit  as  a member 
of  a reappraising  board,  the  inference  being  that,  because  a manufact- 
urer of  a similar  article,  he  naturally  had  a selfish  personal  interest  in 
the  levy  of  the  highest  possible  rate  upon  an  imported  article  similar 
to  his  own.  Considerations  like  these  tend  to  illustrate  the  difficulties 
that  may  exist  in  the  enforcement  of  the  second  section  of  the  proposed 
bill. 

The  tendency  of  my  thoughts  in  respect  to  reappraisements  at  the 
port  of  New  York  is  to  advise  appropriate  and  particular  legisla- 
tion for  that  port.  The  appraising  system  is  not  now,  and  never  has 
been,  the  same  in  .all  the  collection  districts.  In  those  wherein  entries 
are  few,  and  little  duty  is  collected,  the  Collector,  or  Naval  Officer,  a*s 
the  case  may  be,  is  an  appraising  officer.  Even  in  the  larger  ports,  like 
Boston,  or  Philadelphia,  or  Baltimore,  where  the  business  is  very  much 
less  than  at  New  York,  the  arrangements  of  the  appraising  force  are 
different  from  those  existing  at  the  last-named  port.  It  will  be  well,  I 
think,  to  create  a reappraising  board  at  the  port  of  New  York  to  con- 
sist of  three  General  Appraisers,  competent  for  the  important  work, 
and  with  sufficient  salaries.  The  board  should  consist  of  three  instead  of 
two,  so  as  to  prevent  probability  of  disagreement  as  when  the  -board 
consists  of  only  two.  The  decision  of  this  board  should  be  final,  so  as 
to  relieve  the  Collector  of  the  reappraising  work  which  is  now  thrown 
upon  him.  I do  not  think  that  abandonment  of  the  present  plan  of 
selecting  a merchant  to  be  a member  of  the  reappraising  board  will 
work  any  injustice  to  importers  or  consumers,  or  to  the  Government. 
It  will  be  within  the  discretion  of  Congress  to  make  the  tenure  of  office 
of  the  members  of  this  board  such  as  may  be  thought  best.  They  can 
be  nominated  by  the  President  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate,. as  are  Jus- 
tices of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  Judges  of  all  the  other  Federal  Courts. 
Federal  Judges  sitting  in  Admiralty  decide  mixed  questions  of  law  and 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XXXIX. 


fact  without  the  intervention  of  a jury,  and  I see  no  reason  why  execu- 
tive officers  may  not,  as  reapp raisers,  be  intrusted  with  functions  not 
more  delicate,  or  important. 

Third  Section. — This  section  is  a modification  of  Section  2864  of  the 
Bevised  Statutes,  and  of  a provision  in  the  law  of  June  22d,  1874.  It 
covers  merchandise  obtained  by  purchase,  as  well  as  that  obtained 
otherwise  than  by  purchase.  It  implies  that  an  invoice  of  the  former 
must  have  the  same  elements  as  those  now  required  by  law.  But  if  the 
merchandise  be  obtained  otherwise,  then,  by  the  proposed  third  section, 
the  invoice  of  a manufacturer  must  contain,  “the  actual  market  value 
at  the  time  of  exportation  to  the  United  States  in  the  principal  markets 
of  the  country  from  whence  the  same  has  been  exported.”  The  present 
law  declares  that  an  invoice  of  merchandise  sent  hither  by  the  manu- 
facturer must  contain  “ the  actual  market  value  thereof  at  the  time,  and 
place,  when  and  where  the  same  was  procured  or  manufactured .”  The 
change,  it  will  be  seen,  is  both  as  to  the  time  and  as  to  the  place.  I 
have  already  intimated  the  advantage  in  my  opinion  of  changing  the 
time  required  in  such  invoices. 

Fourth  Section. — It  is  with  some  diffidence  that  I interpose  any  objec- 
tion to  the  fourth  section,  which  proposes  that  one-half  of  the  proceeds 
of  fines,  penalties  or  forfeitures  shall  be  deposited  in  the  Treasury  sub- 
ject to  the  joint  order  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  who  are  authorized  to  distribute  this  fund  in  their  dis- 
cretion “to  meritorious  officers  of  the  customs  or  consular  service  who 
shall  have  been  instrumental  in  the  detection  or  punishment  of  frauds 
upon  the  revenue.”  If  this  section  should  become  a law  there  will  I 
fear  be  a practical  difficulty  in  a practical  execution  thereof  at  the 
distant  ports  by  a tribunal  sitting  in  Washington.  No  work  could  be 
more  vexing  for  an  executive  officer  than  the  distribution  of  such  a 
fund.  Any  such  law,  if  deemed  necessary  and  enacted  by  Congress, 
should,  as  did  the  law  of  1789,  define  exactly  what  portion  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  a forfeiture  shall  be  paid  to  a seizing  officer,  and  what  portion 
shall  be  paid  to  an  informer,  or  to  informers,  by  whose  information  the 
seizure  was  made  and  the  forfeiture  accomplished.  Under  the  law  of 
1799,  such  questions  were  judicial  questions  determined  by  the  Court 
when  called  upon  to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  forfeiture  paid  into 
the  registry  of  the  Court.  The  facts,  being  local,  should  be  judicially 
examined  in  the  same  place  where  they  arose,  and  be  disposed  of,  if 
need  be,  by  contentious  litigation.  The  Bill  (S.  B.  No.  1153)  proposes 
not  only  to  revive  the  “Moiety  System,”  but  to  revive  it  in  a most 
objectionable  form. 

Fifth  Section.  — This  fifth  section  in  prescribing  the  rules  for  the  burden 
of  proof  only  refers  to  a suit,  or  information,  uin  rem ,”  when  a seizure 
is  made.  It  makes  no  provision  for  a suit  to  recover  the  value  of  the 
merchandise  when  the  property  cannot  be  seized. 

Sixth  Section.—  There  should  be  an  exhaustive  review  of  existing  legis- 
lation, and  a defining,  describing,  and  identifying  of  the  former  laws 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  Congress,  will  be  inconsistent  with  the  pro- 
posed Bill  if  it  shall  become  a law. 

SPECIFIC  AND  AD  VALOREM  RATES. 

It  will  be  apparent,  I hope,  from  what  has  been  said  above,  and  in 
my  Annual  Beport,  that  I fully  appreciate  whatever  superiorities,  in 
an  ideal  system  of  custom-house  taxation,  low  ad  valorem  rates  may 


XL 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


have  over  specific  rates.  So  long  as  the  disposition  of  Congress  shall  be 
to  continue  to  levy  high  war  duties  upon  some  thousands  of  imported 
articles,  rather  than  low  duties  upon  a few,  a general  application  of 
specific  rates  would  be  impossible  without  inflicting  still  further  hard- 
ship and  injustice  upon  the  wage-receiving  classes  in  the  community, 
and  those  who  are  constrained  to  live  on  small  incomes.  Specific  rates 
levied  upon  all  imported  articles,  and  especially  on  all  articles  of 
clothing,  would  for  them  be  highly  oppressive,  unequal  and  unjust.  A 
system  of  specific  rates  must  be  adjusted,  and  arranged,  with  regard  to  the 
values,  and,  therefore,  when  prices  of  imported  articles  are,  as  now,  tend- 
ing downward,  specific  rates  are  obviously  increasing  without  a textual 
change  in  the  law.  I have  it  also  clearly  in  mind  how  vexing  and  unjust 
is  a compound  system,  made  up  of  ad  valorem  and  specific  rates  on  the 
same  article,,  and  how  still  more  vexing  and  unjust  is  a specific  rate  on  a 
specified  article,  varying  with  foreign  value,  as  is  the  present  scale  of 
rates  on  steel  and  wool.  But  we  are  confronted  with  the  fact  that  the 
Treasury  must  annually  obtain  a sum  hardly  less  than  one  hundred  and 
fifty  millions  of  dollars  from  imported  merchandise,  which  is  a sum  less 
by  some  twenty  millions  than  was  received  last  year.  It  will  be  well-nigh 
impossible,  in  my  opinion,  for  human  wit  to  levy  that  amount  of  tax  with- 
out inflicting  hardship  and  injustice  upon  somebody,  either  importer  or 
consumer,  or  on  some  vested  interest,  whether  agricultural  or  manu- 
facturing. Especially  is  that  true  of  taxes  levied  on  our  coasts,  or  on 
our  frontier,  upon  arriving  merchandise.  The  Government  is  now 
beset,  on  one  side,  with  the  comparative  injustice  and  hardship  upon 
individuals,  and  vested  interests,  inflicted  by  specific  rates  if  levied  on 
all  articles,  and,  on  the  other  side,  by  the  impossibility  of  enforcing 
and  collecting  high  ad  valorem  rates  levied  on  foreign  values  without 
the  use  of  coercive  and  penal  laws  quite  unsuitable  for  a free  govern- 
ment to  put  in  operation,  and  which  when  put  in  operation  are  quite 
likely  to  demoralize  alarmingly  not  only  the  officers  who  are  called 
upon  to  execute  the  law,  but  the  importers  who  are  compelled  to  do 
business  under  it.  One  advantage,  and  perhaps  the  chief  advantage, 
of  a specific  over  an  ad  valorem  system,  is  in  the  fact  that,  under  the 
former,  duties  are  levied  by  a positve  test,  which  can  be  applied  by 
our  officers  while  the  merchandise  is  in  the  possession  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  according  to  a standard  which  is  altogether  national  and 
domestic.  That  would  be  partially  true  of  an  ad  valorem  system 
levied  upon  uliome  value,7’  but  there  are  constitutional  impediments 
in  the  way  of  such  a system  which  appear  to  be  insuperable.  But 
under  an  ad  valorem  system,  the  facts  to  which  the  ad  valorem  rate  is 
to  be  applied  must  be  gathered  in  places  many  thousand  miles  away, 
and  under  circumstances  most  unfavorable  to  the  administration  of 
justice. 

One  hears  it  often  said  that  if  our  ad  valorem  rates  did  not  exceed 
twenty-five  or  thirty  per  cent,  undervaluation  and  temptation  to  under- 
valuation would  disappear,  but  the  records  of  this  Department  for  the 
years  1817,  1840,-  and  1857,  do  not  uphold  that  conclusion.  Of  course 
I am  very  far  from  advocating  the  universal  application  of  specific 
rates,  but  I do  believe  it  to  be  possible  for  the  more  experienced  and 
conscientious  of  our  appraising  or  examining  officers  in  different  parts 
of  the  country,  and  for  the  experts  in  this  Department,  to  prepare  a plan 
for  the  prudent  enlargement  of  specific  rates  which  will  greatly  pro- 
mote the  welfare  of  the  Government,  and  of  the  country,  and,  as  a matter 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XLI 


of  administration,  not  work  injustice  to  any  class  in  the  community 
beyond  the  injustice  inevitably  entailed  by  any  system  that  levies 
annually  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars  tax  on  imported 
merchandise  of  so  many  kinds,  at  war  rates,  and  on  a scheme  other- 
wise so  unscientific  and  disorderly.  A complete  system  of  rates  of  duty 
has  not,  in  the  last  quarter  of  a century,  as  I am  informed,  been  pre- 
pared by  the  official  experts  in  our  custom-houses,  under  the  general 
advice  and  direction  of  this  Department,  and  commended  by  the  Sec- 
retary to  Congress.  I have  caused  a careful  examination  to  be  made 
of  the  tariff  law  of  March,  1883,  to  ascertain  the  number  of  specifica- 
tions, ad  valorem,  specific,  and  mixed,  contained  in  that  enactment,  and 
I present  below  the  result  : 


Schedule. 

Ad  valo- 
rem. 

Specific. 

Mixed. 

A 

144 

118 

7 

B 

60 

17  1 

c 

99 

235 

D 

30 

16 

E 

1 

7 

F 

1 

3 

G 

32 

78 

H 

1 

29 

I 

32 

£0  ' 

J 

60 

18 

K 

3 

12 

75 

L 

12 

1 

M 

32 

N 

196 

32 

i 

Totals 

703 

590 

86 

CONSIGNED  MERCHANDISE. 


The  sending  to  New  York  of  merchandise  by  foreign  manufacturers 
and  presenting  it  there  for  sale,  or  the  taking  in  this  country  of  orders, 
on  samples,  of  merchandise  to  be  delivered  in  New  York  at  duty-paid 
prices  arranged  in  our  currency,  is  a growing  fact  which  this  Govern- 
ment must  face  in  selecting  and  prescribing  rates  of  duty.  Just  as 
manufacturers  in  other  States  of  our  own  Union  send  their  merchandise 
on  consignment  to  their  own  agents  to  sell  in  New  York,  so  do,  and  so 
will,  European  manufacturers.  The  ledgers  of  commerce  and  trade 
will,  more  and  more,  be  written  and  kept,  in  that  city,  and  laws  of 
taxation,  state  or  national,  immediately  probable,  are  not  likely  to 
greatly  impede  or  change  the  current.  As  buyers  in  New  York  do  not 
go  to  New  England  to  buy  her  staple  manufactures,  but  find  all  the  ele- 
ments of  buying  in  New  York,  so  it  will  naturally  be  with  European 
productions.  If  that  is  to  be  the  case,  I do  not  think  our  existing  ad 
valorem  rates  can  in  the  future  be  honestly,  or  satisfactorily,  worked, 
under  the  existing  conditions  of  our  invoice  law,  our  appraising  law, 
and  the  force  of  consular  and  appraising  officers  that  we  now  have.  I 
fear  that  to  begin  reform  with  the  enactment  of  new  u Coercive  Laws’7 
will  be  to  begin  at  the  wrong  end. 

Kespectfully  yours, 

DANIEL  MANNING, 

Secretary. 

To  The  President  pro  tempore 

of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX  A. 
CIRCULAR. 


Application  of  Section  9,  Act  of  March  3,  1883,  to  the  Ascertainment  of 
Foreign  Market  Values  of  Merchandise  Imported  into  the  United  States. 


1883. 

Department  No.  93. 
Secretary’s  Office. 


Treasury  Department, 
Washington , D.  (7.,  July  7,  1883. 


To  Collectors  of  Customs  and  others  : 

The  Department  has  been  informed  through  consular  officers  that 
manufacturers  of  merchandise  abroad  which  is  intended  for  imputa- 
tion into  the  United  States,  to  be  consigned  to  their  agents  in  this 
country,  may  probably  claim  the  right  to  enter  such  merchandise  at 
cost  price  instead  of  its  market  value  under  Section  9 of  the  Tariff  Act 
of  March  3,  1883.  That  section  is  as  follows  : 


“If  upon  the  appraisal  of  imported  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise, 
it  shall  appear  that  the  true  and  actual  market  value  and  wholesale 
price  thereof,  as  provided  by  law,  cannot  be  ascertained  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  appraiser,  whether  because  such  goods,  wares,  and  mer- 
chandise be  consigned  for  sale  by  the  manufacturer  abroad  to  his  agent 
in  the  United  States,  or  for  any  other  reason,  it  shall  then  be  lawful  to 
appraise  the  same  by  ascertaining  the  cost  or  value  of  the  materials 
composing  such  merchandise,  at  the  time  and  place  of  manufacture, 
together  with  the  expense  of  manufacturing,  preparing,  and  putting  up 
such  merchandise  for  shipment,  and  in  no  case  shall  the  value  of  such 
goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  be  appraised  at  less  than  the  total  cost 
or  value  thus  ascertained.” 


Section  2854,  Revised  Statutes,  requires  that  all  invoices  of  imported 
merchandise — 

“shall,  at  or  before  the  shipment  of  the  merchandise,  be  produced  to 
the  consul,  vice-consul,  or  commercial  agent  of  the  United  States  nearest 
the  place  of  shipment,  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  and  shall  have 
indorsed  thereon,  when  so  produced,  a declaration  signed  by  the  pur- 
chaser, manufacturer,  owner,  or  agent,  setting  forth  that  the  invoice  is 
in  all  respects  true ; that  it  contains,  if  the  merchandise  mentioned 
therein  is  subject  to  ad  valorem  duty,  and  was  obtained  by  purchase, 
a true  and  full  statement  of  the  time  when  and  the  place  where  the 
same  was  purchased,  and  the  actual  cost  thereof,  and  of  all  charges 
thereon  ; and  that  no  discounts,  bounties,  or  drawbacks  are  contained 
in  the  invoice  but  such  as  have  actually  been  allowed  thereon ; and 
when  obtained  in  any  other  manner  than  by  purchase,  the  actual  mar- 
ket value  thereof  at  the  time  and  place  when  and  where  the  same  was 
procured  or  manufactured.” 


XLIV  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Section  2845,  Revised  Statutes,  provides  that — 

“no  merchandise  subject  to  ad  valorem  duty  belonging  to  a person  not 
residing  at  the  time  in  the  United  States,  who  has  not  acquired  the 
same  in  the  ordinary  mode  of  bargain  and  sale,  or  belonging  to  the 
manufacturer,  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  the  same,  shall  be  admitted  to 
entry,  unless  the  invoice  thereof  is  verified  by  the  oath  of  the  owner,  or 
of  one  of  the  owners,  administered  and  authenticated  in  the  mode  pre- 
scribed in  the  two  preceding  sections,  and  certifying  that  the  invoice 
contains  a true  and  faithful  account  of  the  merchandise,  at  its  fair 
market  value,  at  the  time  and  place  when  and  where  the  same  was  pro- 
cured or  manufactured. 7 7 

Section  2902,  Revised  Statutes,  is  as  follows : 

“It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  appraisers  of  the  United  States,  and  every 
of  them,  and  every  person  who  shall  act  as  such  appraiser,  or  of  the 
collector  and  naval  officer,  as  the  case  may  be,  by  all  reasonable  ways 
and  means  in  his  or  their  power,  to  ascertain,  estimate,  and  appraise 
the  true  and  actual  market  value  and  wholesale  price,  any  invoice  or 
affidavit  thereto  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  of  the  merchandise, 
at  the  time  of  exportation,  and  in  the  principal  markets  of  the  country 
whence  the  same  has  been  imported  into  the  United  States,  and  the 
number  of  such  yards,  parcels,  or  quantities,  and  such  actual  market 
value  or  wholesale  price  of  every  of  them,  as  the  case  may  require.’7 

Neither  of  these  provisions  is  repealed,  but  they  all  remain  in  full 
force. 

The  Department  regards  Section  9 of  the  Act  of  March  3,  1883,  as  in 
nowise  changing  or  modifying  the  requirements  of  the  Revised  Statutes 
as  to  the  duty  of  manufacturers,  owners,  or  agents  in  making  their 
declarations  to  invoices,  under  Section  2854,  Revised  Statutes,  or 
as  to  the  verification  by  the  oath  of  the  owner,  under  Section  2845. 
Both  sections  require  a statement  that  the  invoice  contains  a true  and 
faithful  account  of  the  merchandise,  at  its  fair  market  value,  at  the  time 
and  place  when  and  where  the  same  was  procured  or  manufactured. 

The  oath  for  the  cases  under  consideration  prescribed  in  the  Tariff 
Act  of  1883,  is  as  follows : 

“I, , do  solemnly  and  truly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  the 

entry  now  delivered  by  me  to  the  collector  of contains  a just 

and  true  account  of  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  imported  by  or  con- 
signed to  me  in  the , whereof is  master,  from 

; that  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  were  not  actually 

bought  by  me,  or  by  my  agent,  in  the  ordinary  mode  of  bargain  and 
sale,  but  that,  nevertheless,  the  invoice  which  I now  produce  contains 
a just  and  faithful  valuation  of  the  same,  at  their  fair  market  value,  at 
the  time  or  times  and  place  or  places  when  and  where  procured  for  my 
account  (or  for  account  of  myself  or  partners) ; that  the  said  invoice 
contains  also  a just  and  faithful  account  of  all  the  cost  for  finishing  said 
goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  to  their  present  condition,  and  no  other 
discount,  drawback  or  bounty  but  such  as  lias  been  actually  allowed 
on  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise ; that  the  said  invoice  and 
the  declaration  thereon  are  in  all  respects  true,  and  were  made  by  the 
person  by  whom  the  same  purports  to  have  been  made ; that  I do  not 
know  nor  believe  in  the  existence  of  any  invoice  or  bill  of  lading  other 
than  those  now  produced  by  me,  and  that  they  are  in  the  state  in  which 
I actually  received  them.  And  I do  further  solemnly  and  truly  swear 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XLV 


(or  affirm)  that  I have  not  in  the  said  entry  or  invoice  concealed  or 
suppressed  anything  whereby  the  United  States  may  be  defrauded  of 
any  part  of  the  duty  lawfully  due  on  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchan- 
dise, and  that  if  at  any  time  hereafter  I discover  any  error  in  the  said 
invoice,  or  in  the  account  now  produced  of  the  said  goods,  wares,  and 
merchandise,  or  receive  any  other  invoice  of  the  same,  I will  immedi- 
ately make  the  same  known  to  the  collector  of  this  district.’’ 

By  reference  to  decisions  of  the  courts  it  appears  that  the  provisions 
of  section  9 of  the  act  of  1883  are  a recognition  of  a principle  already 
applied  to  the  method  which  appraisers  may  adopt  in  extraordinary 
cases  to  ascertain  what  is  the  market  value. 

In  the  case  of  Cliquot’s  Champagne,  (3  Wallace,  U.  S.  Rep.,  125,) 
the  court  charged  the  jury  as  follows : 

“ The  market  value  of  goods  is  the  price  at  which  the  owner  of  the 
goods  or  the  producer  holds  them  for  sale ; the  price  at  which  they  are 
freely  offered  in  the  market  to  all  the  world  ; such  prices  as  dealers  in 
the  goods  are  willing  to  receive,  and  purchasers  are  made  to  pay  when 
the  goods  are  bought  and  sold  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade.  You 
will  perceive,  therefore,  that  the  actual  cost  of  the  goods  is  not  the 
standard.  On  the  contrary,  that  having  been  the  standard,  the  law 
has  been  changed,  and  for  the  standard  of  the  cost  has  been  substituted 
another  standard,  to  wit,  the  actual  market  value.  ’ ’ 

In  “Six  Cases  of  Silk  Ribbons,”  (3  Benedict,  C.  C.  Reports,  536,) 
which  was  a prosecution  for  the  forfeiture  of  the  goods  for  false  valua- 
tion, the  court  charged  the  jury  as  follows : 

i L The  law  presumes  that  there  was,  at  the  time  and  place  of  the  man- 
ufacture of  the  goods  seized,  an  actual  market  value  thereof;  and  no 
evidence  can  be  received  or  considered,  under  the  law  and  under  the 
oaths  to  the  invoices,  to  show  there  was  not,  in  fact,  such  actual  market 
value  thereof.  The  cost  of  the  goods  will  come  under  consideration,  if 
at  all,  not  as  a substitute  for  market  value,  but  merely  as  an  item  of 
evidence  on  the  question  as  to  what  was  the  actual  market  value.  There- 
fore, you  must  assume  in  this  case  that  there  was  an  actual  market 
value  for  these  goods  at  the  time  and  place  of  their  manufacture,  the 
only  question  being  to  ascertain  what  such  actual  market  value  was. 
The  claimants  had  no  right  to  adopt  any  other  standard  of  value  than 
snch  actual  market  value,  nor  do  I understand  them  as  claiming  that 
they  had  such  right.  They  have  sworn  in  the  oath  on  each  invoice 
that  such  invoice  contains  the  actual  market  value ; and  their  claim  is, 
not  that  they  had  a right  to  set  forth  anything  except  the  actual  market 
value,  but  that  the  actual  market  value  was  the  cost,  with  the  manu- 
facturer’s profit  added,  at  the  percentage  named  in  the  testimony,  and 
that  such  actual  market  value  was  no  greater  according  to  their  idea  of 
actual  market  value.  So,  also,  the  claimants  were  required  to  state  in 
their  invoices  the  actual  market  value  of  their  goods  at  the  time  and 
place  of  their  manufacture,  not  only  without  regard  to  the  cost  thereof, 
but  without  regard  to  the  profit  or  loss  which  might  result  from  their 
consignment  thereof,  or  any  loss  which  may  be  shown  in  the  end  to  have 
resulted  therefrom.  If  they  chose  to  take  the  cost  and  add  a profit, 
and  make  up  the  actual  market  value  in  that  way,  and  it  turns  out  in 
the  end  that  that  is  the  actual  market  value,  very  well ; but  if  it  turns 
out  in  the  end  that  that  is  less  than  the  actual  market  value,  the  claim- 


XLVI  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


ants  cannot  maintain  under  the  law  that  they  had  a right  to  put  in  place 
of  the  actual  market  value  the  cost  with  the  manufacturer’s  profit 
added.  Nor  is  the  manufacturer  relieved  or  excused  from  stating  in 
his  invoice  such  actual  market  value,  or  justified  in  adopting  any  other 
standard  of  value,  because  he  may  not  himself  make  sales  at  home  of 
similar  goods,  but  may  consign  all  such  goods  for  sale  to  foreign  markets. 
Although  he  may  adopt  such  course  of  trade,  he  is,  nevertheless,  re- 
quired to  state  in  his  invoice  the  actual  market  value  of  such  goods  at 
the  time  and  place  of  their  completed  manufacture ; that  is,  the  price 
he  holds  such  goods  for  sale  at  such  time  and  place,  the  price  at  which 
he  then  and  there  freely  offers  them  in  the  market,  such  price  as  he  is 
then  and  there  willing  to  receive  for  them,  if  they  are  sold  in  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  trade.” 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  discusses  the  method  of  ascertaining 
the  market  value  as  follows,  (Synopsis,  3222 :) 

1 1 Where  no  sales  are  made  in  the  country  of  production,  either  for 
consumption  or  export,  the  market  value  of  similar  goods  of  other  man- 
ufacturers actually  sold  should  be  ascertained  and  be  taken  into  account. 
In  cases  where  the  manufacturer  ships  all  his  goods  to  the  United  States 
on  consignment  for  sale,  and  the  market  value  cannot  be  ascertained 
by  the  methods  before  indicated,  it  should  be  fixed  by  reference  to  the 
market  value  of  the  component  materials  of  the  goods  at  the  time  and 
place  of  manufacture,  with  the  expense  of  manufacture  and  a fair  man- 
ufacturer’s profit  added ; and  the  appraised  value  in  such  cases  cannot 
be  less  than  the  cost  and  profit  so  ascertained. 

“It  is  to  be  understood  that  evidence  of  the  cost  of  production  of  im- 
ported goods  is  in  all  cases  to  be  regarded  as  a proper  subject  for  con- 
sideration in  determining  dutiable  values,  and  appraisers  are  allowed, 
under  the  law,  the  greatest  latitude  in  procuring  information  as  to  what 
is  the  true  market  value  of  imported  merchandise ; but  it  will  be  borne 
in  mind  that  duties  can  in  no  case  be  assessed  upon  an  amount  less  than 
the  invoice  or  entered  value,  nor  can  the  appraisement  be  made  at  less 
than  that  value.” 

The  Department  holds  that  all  the  old  methods  of  ascertaining  the 
actual  market  value  are  still  open  to  the  appraiser,  and  that  it  is  still 
his  duty,  by  every  means  in  his  power,  to  “ascertain,  estimate,  and 
appraise  the  true  and  actual  market  value  and  wholesale  price”  of  mer- 
chandise, “any  invoice  or  affidavit  thereto  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing,” and  that  the  provisions  of  Section  9 only  authorize  him, 
when  such  value  cannot  be  ascertained  to  his  satisfaction  otherwise,  to 
appaaise  the  same  by  ascertaining  the  cost  or  value  of  the  materials  as 
prescribed  in  that  section. 

The  language  of  the  provision  is  not  imperative,  it  is  merely  per- 
missive— “it  shall  then  be  lawful  to  appraise  the  same  by  ascertaining 
the  cost  or  value  of  the  materials,”  &c.  No  manufacturer,  shipper, 
owner,  or  other  party  has  the  right  to  invoice  goods  procured  otherwise 
than  by  purchase  at  any  other  than  the  true  market  value,  and  in  no 
case  is  the  appraiser  required  to  adopt  any  but  the  ordinary  method  of 
ascertaining  market  value. 

When  he  does  adopt  this  method  of  appraisal,  the  law  expressly  re- 
quires that  “in  no  case  shall  the  value  of  such  goods,  wares,  and  mer- 
chandise be  appraised  at  less  than  the  total  cost  or  value  thus  ascer- 
tained.” 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XLVII 


Although  by  section  7 of  the  tariff  act  of  1883  all  the  provisions  of 
law  for  adding  charges  to  the  value  of  merchandise  to  make  dutiable 
value  are  repealed,  yet  section  9 of  the  same  act  provides  that  when 
appraisers  resort  to  the  method  of  appraisal  described  in  that  section, 
they  are  required  to  add  to  the  cost  or  value  of  the  maierials  composing 
such  merchandise  at  the  time  and  place  of  manufacture  “the  expense 
of  manufacturing,  preparing,  and  putting  up  such  merchandise  for  ship- 
ment.” The  expense  of  preparing  and  putting  up  merchandise  for 
shipment  has  always  been  regarded  as  among  the  charges,  and  the  De- 
partment holds  that,  notwithstanding  the  general  repeal  of  all  provis- 
ions for  charges  contained  in  section  7,  the  charges  for  preparing  and 
putting  up  merchandise  for  shipment  must  still  be  added  to  make  duti- 
able value  whenever  the  Appraiser  makes  his  appraisal  under  section  9. 

It  may  further  be  observed  that  the  method  of  appraisal  contained  in 
Section  9 might,  if  adopted  in  some  cases,  inflict  great  hardship  upon 
exporters  of  merchandise.  It  has  sometimes  happened  that  the  market 
value  of  merchandise,  notably  silks,  by  reason  of  an  over-supply,  has 
been  less  than  the  actual  cost  of  production.  To  appraise  such  mer- 
chandise at  the  cost  or  value  of  the  material  composing  it  at  the  time 
and  place  of  manufacture,  with  the  expense  of  manufacturing,  prepar- 
ing, and  putting  up  such  merchandise  for  shipment,  might  fix  its  value 
far  above  the  actual  market  value  and  wholesale  price  at  the  date  of 
exportation,  while  in  another  condition  of  the  market  the  actual  market 
value  and  wholesale  price  might  be  greater  than  the  cost  of  production 
with  the  expense  of  preparing  and  putting  up  the  merchandise  for 
shipment. 

1 Appraising  officers  and  parties  interested  in  the  importation  of  mer- 
chandise will  therefore  bear  in  mind  that  not  only  does  the  law  require 
the  true  and  actual  market  value  of  the  merchandise  to  be  certified 
upon  the  invoice  and  stated  in  the  entry,  but  that-  this  is  a far  more 
just  and  equitable  method  of  appraisal  than  that  described  in  Section 
9,  and  that  the  method  adopted  in  Section  9 should  not  be  resorted  to 
except  in  cases  where  the  true  and  actual  market  value  and  wholesale 
price  cannot  otherwise  be  ascertained  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  ap- 
praiser, a condition  which  can  but  rarely  occur. 

When  the  appraiser  is  compelled  to  resort  to  this  mode  of  appraisal, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  statute  to  prevent  his  adding  to  the  items  therein 
enumerated  whatever  he  deems  proper  to  make  the  true  and  actual 
market  value,  the  only  restriction  upon  his  action  being  that  “in  no 
case  shall  the  value  of  such  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  be  appraised 
at  less  than  the  total  cost  or  value  thus  ascertained. ? ? 

H.  F.  FRENCH, 

Acting  Secretary. 


XLVIII  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


APPENDIX  B. 

Statement  of  the  number  and  designation  of  officers  and  employes  shown  on  the  records  of  the 
Department  as  being  now  employed  in  the  appraiser's  office  at  the  port  of  New  York,  to- 
gether with  the  aggregate  annual  cost  of  paying  their  present  salaries. 


Number. 

Designation. 

Salary. 

l Totals. 

Per 

annum. 

Per  diem. 

1 

$3  000 

$3  000  00 

1 

f non 

4 000  00 

10 

3,000 

1 30*  000  00 

12 

37,000  00 

Class  4. 

1 

2,500 

$2  500  00 

1 

2,500  

2*500  00 

1 

2,500 

2,500  00 

18 

2 500 

45*000  00 

1 

2,300 

2, 300  00 

8 

2,200 

17*600  00 

7 

Do  

2,000 

14*000  00 

34 

Do  

1,800 

1 61,200  00 

1 

2,000 

2,000  00 

1 

2,000 

2,000  00 

1 

1,800 

1,800  00 

3 

1,800 

5,400  00 

1 

1,800 

1,800  00 

78 

: 160, 600  00 

Class  3. 

4 

Examiners  each 

1,600 

$6,400  00 

1 

Openers  and  packers,  superintendent  of 

1,600 

1,600  00 

6 

Clerks  each 

1,600 

9.600  00 

11 

17,600  00 

Class  2. 

10 

Clerks  a net  verifiers 

1,400 

$14,000  00 

Class  1. 

4 

Examiners  each 

1,200 

$4,800  00 

1 

Clerk  ..’ 

1,200 

1,200  00 

1 

Clerk  and  verifier 

1,300 

1,300  00 

15 

Clerks  and  verifiers,  each 

1,200 

18,000  00 

30 

Samplers  each 

1,200 

36,000  00 

51 

61,300  00 

Class  A. 

1 

Clerk  

1,150 

$1, 150  00 

1 

Clerk  and  verifier 

1, 150 

1,150  00 

2 

Samplers  each 

1,150 

2,300  00 

1 

Opener  and  packer  in  charge : 

$3  75 

1, 173  25 

5 

Foremen  of  openers  and  packers,  each 

’ 3 75 

5, 868  75 

1 

Messenger  ^ 

3 75 

1,173  25 

72 

Openers  and  packers,  each 

3 00 

67, 608  00 

83 

80, 424  25 

Unclassed. 

3 

Clerks  each 

864 

$2,592  00 

35 

Messengers,  each 

840 

29,400  00 

55 

Openers  and  packers,  each 

2 75 

47,341  25 

93 

79, 333  95 

338 

Grand  total 1 

$450, 257  50 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


XLIX 


Disbursements  by  the  collector  and  disbursing  agent  at  New  York , N.  Y. , under  head  of 
“ appraisements ” or  appraiser1  s department,  during  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1885. 


Salaries  to  general  appraiser,  appraiser,  assistant  appraisers,  examiners, 


verifiers,  samplers,  clerks,  messengers,  &c 

Salaries  oj*  compensation  to  openers  and  packers 

Compensation  to  laborers 

Rent  of  buildings $66,  220  00 

Rent  of  telephone  and  telegraph 1 , 393  35 

New  freight-elevator 4,  432  ■ 00 

Construction  of  additional  story 4,  304  00 

New  York  Transfer  Company,  cartage  of  dutiable  merchan- 
dise   26,  373  72 


Contingent : Gas,  water-rents,  ice,  postage,  subscriptions,  hauling  of  sugar 
samples,  hire  of  coupe,  twine,  trucks,  nails,  coal,  sprinkling  streets, 
furniture,  repairs  to  heating  apparatus  and  building,  &c 


$323,751  18 
120, 140  50 
67, 128  50 


102,723  07 
47,471  10 


Total, 


661,  214  35 


Recapitulation. 


Contingent $47,  47 1 10 

Rent 66,220  00 

Telephones  and  elevators .., 5,  825  35 

Additional  story  to  building 4,  304  00 

Cartage  contract 26,  373  72 

Salaries  and  compensation 511,020  18 


Total 661,214  35 


Treasury  Department, 

Office  of  the  Supervising  Architect , January  26,  1886. 

Memoranda. 

Premises  rented  in  New  York  City  for  appraisement  and  storage  of  goods  in  connection  with 

the  customs  service. 


Premises. 

Use. 

Period. 

Amount. 

Square  between  West  Laight,  Hu- 
bert, and  Washington  streets 

Appraisers’  store 

3 years  from  May  1,  1883 

Ann'l  rent. 
$64, 500  00 

Exchange  place  and  Beaver  street. 
Additional  room 

Naval  office 

do 

10,000  00 

LI  months  from  June  1, 1885. 
1 year  from  July  1,  1885 i 

1,800  00 
1,000  00 
400  00 

365  West  street 

Weighers’  office 

118  South  street 

.........do 

Wall  street  stores,  Brooklyn 

do 

do 

300  00 

12  Hamilton  avenue 

do 

do  

200  00 

Havemeyer’s  Bonded  Warehouse. 
86  West  street 

do 

do 

180  00 

Gangers’  office  

do  

600  00 

40  Burling  slip 

do  

540  00 

3 Atlantic  street,  Brooklyn 

do 

300  00 

250  West  street 

Chemical  laboratory. 

3 vears  from  May  1,  1883 

79,820  00 
1,600  00 

! 81, 420  00 

S.  Ex.  72- 


IV 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


In  July  last  the  Department  sent  out  to  merchants  and  manufacturers, 
respectively,  copies  of  the  appended  circular  letters.  About  1,000 
copies  of  each  circular  were  so  issued,  and  the  attention  of  many  mer- 
chants and  manufacturers  to  whom  the  circulars  were  not  sent  was 
called  to  them  by  their  publication  in  the  daily  press. 

The  total  number  of  replies  received  from  all  sources  was  1,269,  of 
which  number  767  were  in  the  form  of  a circular  letter  from  manufact- 
urers approving  the  reply  of  the  National  Association  of  Wool  Manu- 
facturers to  the  Department  Circular.  Of  the  500  replies  made  directly 
to  the  Department,  all  but  71  appear  in  this  volume.  As  to  these  last, 
their  failure  to  appear  in  the  volume  is  due  either  to  the  refusal  of  the 
writers  to  allow  their  publication,  to  their  neglect  to  authorize  such 
publication,  or  to  the  fact  that  the  letters  did  not  contain  information 
that  was  deemed  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  their  publication. 


(Circular  to  Merchants.) 


Treasury  Department, 

Office  of  the  Secretary, 

Washington , D.  (7., , 1885. 


Investigations  of  the  methods  of  entry  and  appraisement  of  imported 
merchandise  have  shown  that  the  tariff  laws  are  largely  evaded  by  un- 
dervaluation wherever  the  duties  are  levied  ad  valorem.  A remedy 
suggested  for  this  evil  is  the  adoption  of  specific  duties. 

With  a view  of  obtaining  information  on  this  subject,  which  may  be 
useful  to  Congress,  in  fiscal  legislation,  and  serve  as  an  aid  in  the  im- 
provement of  the  customs-revenue  system,  it  is  deemed  proper  to  ask 
the  advice  of  merchants  whose  business  may  be  affected  by  tariff  legis- 
lation, and  whose  just  interests,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Government, 
are  dependent  upon  an  honest  and  efficient  administration  of  the  tariff 
laws. 

You  are  therefore  requested  to  give  your  views  as  to  the  feasibility 
of  simplifying  the  tariff,  and  making  the  duties  specific  upon  imported 
merchandise  with  which  you  are  familiar,  now  subject  to  ad  valorem 
rates,  or  to  which  the  ad  valorem  principle  is  applied,  together  with 
such  suggestions  as  you  may  be  pleased  to  make  towards  the  removal 
of  incongruities,  so  that  the  administration  of  the  revenue  laws  may  be 
rendered  more  effective  and  uniform. 

It  is  suggested  that  your  reply  may  be  accompanied  by  a schedule 
showing  the  rates  of  specific  duty  which,  in  your  opinion,  should  be 
levied  upon  the  various  kinds  and  qualities  of  merchandise  named  in 
such  schedule,  and  also  the  specific  rates  which,  according  to  your  best 
information,  would  be  equivalent  to  the  present  ad  valorem  rates. 

Information  is  also  desired  as  to  what  extent,  and  with  respect  to 
what  classes  of  merchandise,  your  firm  has  suffered  injury  on  account  of 
evasions  of  the  tariff,  and  how,  in  your  judgment,  such  evasions  may 
be  prevented — whether  by  specific  duties  or  otherwise. 

Your  reply  will  be  treated  as  confidential,  if  so  desired. 

Very  respectfully, 

DAYIEL  MAYYIYG, 

Secretary. 


(Circular  to  Manufacturers.) 

Treasury  Department, 

Office  of  the  Secretary, 

Washington , D.  (7., , 1885. 


Investigations  of  the  methods  of  entry  and  apx^raisement  of  imported 
merchandise  have  shown  that  the  tariff  laws  are  largely  evaded  by 
undervaluation  wherever  the  duties  are  levied  ad  valorem.  A remedy 
suggested  for  this  evil  is  the  adoption  of  specific  duties. 


LI  V 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


With  a view  of  obtaining  information  on  this  subject,  which  may  be 
useful  to  Congress,  in  fiscal  legislation,  and  as  an  aid  in  the  improve- 
ment of  the  customs-revenue  system,  it  is  deemed  proper  to  ask  the 
.advice  of  those  directly  interested  in  the  various  industrial  arts  of  the 
country  which  may  be  affected  b^  tariff  legislation,  and  which  suffer 
more  or  less  by  reason  of  defective  methods  of  administration. 

You  are  therefore  requested  to  give  your  views  as  to  the  feasibility 
of  simplifying  the  tariff,  and  making  the  duty  specific,  so  far  as  appli- 
cable to  imported  articles,  such  as  are  made  or  produced  in  the  United 
States,  in  which  you  are  interested,  or  with  which  yon  are  familiar, 
with  as  full  information  on  the  subject  as  you  may  be  pleased  to  submit. 

It  is  desirable  that,  in  addition  to  a schedule  showing  the  rates  of 
specific  duty  which  in  your  opinion  should  be  levied  upon  the  various 
kinds  and  qualities  of  merchandise  embraced  therein,  the  information 
furnished  may  cover  the  following  points : 

1.  Commercial  or  technical  designation  of  the  article,  with  sample  or 
samples. 

2.  Cost  of  production  of  a given  unit  of  quantity,  by  weight  or  meas- 
ure, with  the  following  details  as  to  each  kind  or  quality  of  article,  viz  : 

(a)  Cost  of  materials,  character  of  same,  (as  for  example,  if  wool,  the 
kind  of  wool  ,*)  whether  of  foreign  or  domestic  origin.  If  foreign,  what 
part  of  the  value  represents  duties  paid  thereon. 

( b ) Cost  of  labor  in  detail,  giving  each  article  specifically,  and  the 
rates  of  wages  paid. 

(c)  Operating  expenses,  and  how  distributed. 

( d ) Interest. 

(e)  Other  elements  of  cost  not  covered  by  the  above. 

3.  Description  of  buildings  and  machinery,  and  amount  of  capital 
im^ested  in  each. 

4.  If  the  foreign  article  of  similar  kind  and  quality  is  subject  to  ad 
valorem  duty,  state  as  nearly  as  practicable  the  specific  equivalent  per 
a given  unit  of  weight  or  measure. 

5.  Mention  any  exceptional  element  of  advantage  or  disadvantage  in 
manufacturing,  such  as  location  of  the  factory  with  reference  to  market, 
or  means  of  transportation,  accessibility  of  supplies,  nature  of  the  power 
or  kind  of  machinery  used,  character  of  labor  employed,  rates  of  wages 
paid,  amount  of  taxes,  or  exemption  from  taxation,  &c. 

You  are  also  requested  to  forward  such  information  as  you  may  be 
able  to  submit  showing  the  relative  cost  of  manufacture  of  the  same 
article  in  the  United  States  and  in  Europe,  particularly  with  regard  to 
the  cost  of  labor,  as  affected  by  the  rate  of  wages  paid  in  the  different 
countries.  State  how  much  the  total  cost  of  a given  unit  of  production 
is  increased  in  the  United  States  over  European  countries  by  reason  of 
the  difference  in  wages  paid,  and  the  rate  of  interest  on  capital  em- 
ployed. 

State  also  to  what  extent,  within  your  knowledge,  of  the  special  trade 
with  which  your  business  is  connected,  the  present  laws  imposing  taxes 
on  the  imported  article  have  been  evaded,  and  how  the  same  can  be 
corrected,  whether  by  specific  duties  or  otherwise,  and  to  what  extent 
the  home  industry  with  which  you  are  connected  lias  suffered  from  this 
cause. 

It  is  not  intended  that  your  reply  shall  be  confined  to  the  form  or 
scope  of  the  inquiries  above  suggested,  but  you  are  invited  to  give  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


LV 


fullest  expression  of  your  views  on  the  general  subject  indicated,  in 
such  manner  and  form  as  you  may  deem  best. 

Publicity  will  not  be  given  to  names,  location,  or  facts  relating  to  the 
business  of  individuals  or  corporations.  These  will  be  treated  as  private, 
if  so  desired. 

Please  reply  at  your  earliest  convenience. 

Very  respectfully, 

DANIEL  MANNING, 

Secretary. 


[Belding  Bros.  & Co.,  silk  manufactures.'] 


New  York,  July  31,  1885. 

Mr.  Secretary: 

Dear  Sir  : Your  welcome  circular  of  the  18th  has  been  received,  and 
we  hasten  to  reply,  because  we  are  among  the  victims  who  have  suf- 
fered so  long  and  go  severely  from  undervaluation. 

This  effort  of  yours  to  enforce  and  maintain  the  honest  revenue  of 
the  country  is  highly  commended  by  all,  for  there  were  those  who 
thought  that  the  corruptions  of  the  custom  house  would  endure  forever. 
But  you  have  grasped  the  subject  with  a steady  hand  and  a determined 
purpose  that  entitles  you  to  the  earnest  support  of  all  who  are  directly 
affected  by  it. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

BELDING  BROS.  & CO. 
Per  H.  D.  BURKETT. 


Paragraph  1. — “Commercial  or  technical  designation  of  the  article  with  sample 
or  samples.” 

Domestic  designation:  Cotton-hack  satin. 

Foreign  designation : Satin  tram6-coton. 

Sample  attached.  (Description:)  Cotton-hack  satin  ; color,  seal;  width,  27  inches ; 
quality,  249 ; warp  threads,  9,500 : picks,  per  inch,  100 ; pure  dye ; cotton  No.  50,  2- 
ply. 

Paragraph  2. — “ Cost  of  production  of  a given  unit  of  quantity,  hy  weight  or 
measure,  with  the  following  details  as  to  each  kind  or  quality  of  article,  namely  : 

Given  unit  of  measure,  120  yards. 

“ Cost  of  material,  character  of  same,  whether  foreign  or  domestic  origin ; if  for- 
eign, what  part  of  the  value  represents  duties  paid  thereon.” 

Cost  of  material:  Silk,  $44;  cotton,  $9.90. 

Character  of  materials : Silk,  best  Italian;  combed  peeler,  domestic  cotton. 

“Cost  of  labor  in  detail,  giving  each  item  specifically  and  the  rates  of  wages  paid.” 


Material : 

Raw  silk,  best  Italian,  8 pounds,  at  $5.50 $44  00 

Cotton,  combed  peeler,  domestic,  50.2,  18  pounds,  at  55  cents 9 90 


53  90 


2 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Labor : 

Throwing  raw  silk,  8 pounds,  at  $1.15 $9  20 

Dyeing  raw  silk,  8 pounds,  at  50  cents 4 00 

Winding  dyed  silk,  pounds,  at  30  cents - 1 95 

Warping  dyed  silk,  pounds,  at  90  cents 5 85 

Winding  cotton,  18  pounds,  at  10  cents 1 80 

Dyeing  cotton,  18  pounds,  at  15  cents 2 70 

Weaving  120  yards  of  cloth,  at  16  cents 19  20 

Finishing  120  yards  of  cloth,  at  4 cents. 4 80 

$49  50 


103  40 

Average  loss  in  working  material,  10  per  cent 5 39 

Average  mill  expenses,  including  rent,  supplies,  insurance,  depreciation,  &c., 

D.er  yard,  14  cents 16  80 


Cost  of  120  yards 125  59 

Cost  of  1 yard 1 05 


Winding  — Where  help  is  hired  by  the  day,  as  is  done  in  many  of  the  large  mills,  the 
usual  wages  paid  is  about  $5  a week — occasionally  $6,  but  seldom. 

Warping  is  mostly  done  in  large  mills  with  the  power  machine,  known  as  the  Swiss 
warper. 

The  warpers  get  about  $7  a week. 

Weaving. — As  weavers  are  seldom  employed  by  the  day  or  week,  but  are  paid  by 
the  yard,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  goods  woven,  the  prices  are  not  easily  made 
definite,  but  the  weekly  average  of  power-loom  weavers  is  for  males  about  $9,  and  for 
females  about  $7.50,  and  of  hand-loom  weavers  from  $12  to  14. 

“ Other  elements  of  cost  not  covered  by  the  above.” 

There  are  ijrobably  some  other  elements  of  cost  which  can  only  be  reckoned  by  large 
manufacturers  in  a general  way. 

Paragraph  3. — “Description  of  buildings  and  machinery  and  amount  of  capital 
invested  in  each.” 

The  mills  are  furnished  with  the  most  approved  machinery  of  the  best  makers  and 
of  the  latest  construction,  having  every  improvement  known  to  the  silk  industry. 

Our  authorized  capital  is  $600,000,  all  paid  in. 

Paragraph  4. — “If  the  foreign  article  of  similar  kind  and  quality  is  subject  to 
ad  valorem  duty,  state  as  nearly  as  practicable  the  specific  equivalent  for  a given  unit 
of  weight  or  measure.” 

Exhibit  A,  for  quality  249. 


[The  given  unit  of  weight  is  26  pounds ; of  measure  is  120  yards.] 

Home 

cost. 

Foreign 

cost. 

$49  50 
9 90 

Labor  (one-half) ...£,. 

$24  75 
4 95 
44  00 
10  03 

Cotton  (one-half) .... ............... 

44  00 
22  19 

Silk  (same) 

Other  expenses 

Ad  valorem  duty,  50  per  cent 

83  73 
41  86 

125  59 

■ 

125  59 

Equivalent  specific  duty,  26  pounds,  at  $1.61 $41  86 

Exhibit  B,  for  quality  235. 

[The  given  unit  of  weight  is  27  pounds  10  ounces;  of  measure  is  120  yards.] 


Home 

cost. 

Foreign 

cost. 

$57  36 
9 90 
52  94 
23  08  j 

Labor  (one-half) 

$28  68 
4 95 
52  94 
8 95 

Cotton  (one-half) 

Silk  (same) ...... 

| Other  expenses 

Ad  valorem  dutv,  50  per  cent 

143  28 

95  52 
47  76 

1 

143  28 

Equivalent  speciflo  duty,  27  pounds  10  ounces,  at  $1.73 $47  76 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


3 


Quality  235. 

Material : 

Raw  silk,  best  Italian,  9 pounds  10  ounces,  at  $5.50 $52  94 

Cotton,  combed  peeler,  domestic,  50-2,  18  pounds,  at  55  cents 9 90 


62  84 

Labor : 

Throwing  raw  silk,  9 pounds  10  ounces,  at  $1.15 11  07 

Dyeing  raw  silk,  9 pounds  10  ounces,  at  50  cents 4 81 

Winding  dyed  silk,  7 pounds  13  ounces,  at  30  cents 2 34 

Warping  dyed  silk,  7 pounds  13  ounces,  at  90  cents 7 04 

Winding  cotton,  18  pounds,  at  10  cents «...  1 80 

Dyeing  cotton,  18  pounds,  at  15  cents 2 70 

Weaving  120  yards  cloth,  at  19  cents 22  80 

Finishing  120  yards  cloth,  at  4 cents 4 80 

57  36 

Average  loss  in  working  material,  10  per  cent 6 28 

AA^erage  mill  expenses  120  yards,  at  14  cents 16  80 


Total  cost  120  yards 143  28 

Total  cost  1 yard,  $1.19. 


Sample  attached  (description) : Cotton-backed  satin.  Color,  seal.  Width,  27 
inches.  Quality,  235.  Warp  threads,  11,400.  Picks,  per  inch,  100.  Pure  dye.  Cotton 
No.  50, 2-ply. 

Paragraph  5. — u Mention  any  exceptional  element  of  advantage  or 
disadvantage  in  manufacturing,  such  as  location  of  factory  with  refer- 
ence to  market  or  means  of  transportation,  accessibility  of  supplies, 
nature  of  the  power  or  kind  of  machinery  used,  character  of  labor  em- 
ployed, rates  of  wages  paid,  amount  of  taxes  or  exemption  from  taxa- 
tion,” &c. 

We  have  no  exceptional  element  of  advantage  or  disadvantage  in 
manufacturing.  The  locality  is  good  and  healthy.  The  transportation 
by  rail  is  good  and  sufficient.  Supplies  are  easily  accessible.  The  ma- 
chinery is  new  and  the  power  is  steam,  with  Corliss  engines  of  200  horse- 
power. The  character  of  labor  is  represented  by  several  nationalities — 
French,  German,  Swiss,  Italians,  and  English — and  wages  are  about 
uniform  with  those  of  Paterson,  NT.  J. 

Note. — The  samples  mentioned  above  will  be  separately  transmitted  to 
Congress. 


[John  Ryle,  silks .] 

Paterson,  NT.  J.,  August  15, 1885. 

Sir:  The  opening  paragraph  of  your  circular  letter  asserts  “Inves- 
tigations of  the  methods  of  entry  and  appraisement  of  imported  mer- 
chandise have  shown  that  the  tariff  laws  are  largely  evaded  by  under- 
valuation wherever  the  duties  are  levied  ad  valorem.” 

In  confirmation  of  this  statement  a manufacturer’s  opinion  of  the 
cause  of  the  wide-spread  system  of  undervaluation  of  imported  goods 
may  have  weight,  and  I say  unhesitatingly  it  is  the  ad  valorem  mode 
of  assessment,  with  its  high  rates,  and  the  remedy  is  surely  a specific 
duty,  but  a specific  rate  of  duty  is  not  the  whole  cure;  only  mixed  du- 
ties will  cover  the  case. 

There  can  never  be  any  serious  danger  of  undervaluation  if  a system 
of  mixed  duties  is  adopted  by  the  Government,  with  the  ad  valorem 
portion  at  so  low  a rate  as  20  per  cent,  and  the  specific  one  by  weight ; 
then  the  result  will  be  a simply  form  of  duty,  easily  ascertained  and 
readily  collected, 


4 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


In  the  history  and  experience  of  commercial  or  tariff  legislation  under 
a high  rate  of  ad  valorem  duty  it  has  never  been  in  the  power  of  gov- 
ernments to  relieve  themselves  from  undervaluation  by  any  safeguard 
which  could  be  devised,  for  the  reason  that  the  origin  of  this  evasion 
of  the  law  is  just  here : the  law  itself  is  not  founded  upon  a principle 
which  can  be  maintained  in  its  integrity  so  soon  as  the  duty  imposed 
becomes  in  its  evasion  ofisufficient  profit  to  tempt  either  the  avarice  or 
cupidity  of  merchants  or  importers.  High  rates  of  duty  must  needs  be 
specific,  or  the  Government  must  submit  to  a system  of  evasions  and 
undervaluations  under  ad  valorem  rates.  The  two  conditions  are  insep- 
arable. 

Congress,  in  framing  laws  for  the  imposition  of  duties  on  silk  manu- 
factures, has  always  imposed  ad  valorem  rates,  while  experience  has 
proved  that  for  a material  which  in  its  nature  is  susceptible  of  being 
manufactured  into  so  great  variety  of  cloth,  the  value  of  each  so  de- 
pendent upon  other  causes  than  its  intrinsic  worth,  or  its  proportionate 
value  to  the  worth  of  the  raw  material,  that  there  is  no  form  of  words 
which  can  be  put  together  in  formulating  an  ad  valorem  tariff  which  will 
not  cause  evasion  to  a great  extent  of  the  duties  imposed,  and  be  in  its 
collection  a fruitful  source  of  undervaluation.  And  one  noticeable 
point — this  evasion  has  always  been  in  proportion  to  the  rate  of  duty. 

Hence  we  have  seen  in  the  past  a continuous  struggle  on  the  part  of 
Government  to  collect  the  duties  imposed,  and  ceaseless  attempts  by 
the  parties  interested  to  evade. 

When  the  ad  valorem  dutyfis  so  low  it  will  not  pay  to  rob  the  Treasury 
Department,  then  the  frauds  upon  the  Government  will  cease  perforce. 

No  one  will  question  the  fact  that  the  greater  portion  of  the  under- 
valuations and  evasions  of  the  law  have  been  practiced  under  the  sched- 
ule imposing  duties  on  silks.  Perhaps  in  the  whole  range  of  imports 
the  silk  manufactures  have  been  the  fruitful  cause  of  more  expensive 
and  irritating  litigation,  more  disputes  between  the  officers  of  customs 
and  merchants,  than  any  other  class  of  imports  in  the  whole  range  of 
dutiable  articles  that  legislation  has  attempted  to  control  by  acts  of 
Congress  since  the  foundation  of  the  Government ; and  this  has  been 
caused  largely  by  the  nature,  form,  and  extent  of  the  law  imposing  the 
duty,  its  nature  being  ad  valorem,  its  form  being  appraisement  based 
on  the  foreign  invoiced  price,  and  the  extent  being  the  high  rate  im- 
posed. 

The  beginning  of  the  system  of  undervaluation  dates  from  the  time 
of  the  passage  of  high  tariff  rates  in  1 862,  when  all  duties  were  paid  in 
gold.  At  that  time  the  duties  on  silks  were  fixed  at  sixty  per  cent,  ad 
valorem. 

This  rate  was  the  incentive  to  every  conceivable  evasion,  and  the 
premium  on  gold  only  added  force  to  the  temptation,  and  goes  far  to 
prove  that  the  prolific  source  of  all  the  evils  experienced  now  arise  from 
the  high  rate  of  duty  and  the  ad  valorem  mode  of  assessment;  and  yet 
it  is  due  the  original  framers  of  the  tariff  laws  to  acknowledge  they 
were  wise  and  patriotic  in  their  efforts  to  secure  to  our  Government  the 
largest  amount  of  revenue  that  would  insure  the  greatest  financial  aid, 
at  a time  when  sorely  needed,  and  they  took  the  best  means  known  at 
that  time  to  enable  the  customs  authority  to  collect  it. 

When  one  considers  the  variety  of  silk  cloth  produced,  the  various 
textures  and  widths,  with  the  great  difference  in  the  values,  and  they 
dependent  upon  fluctuating  circumstances,  it  would  seem  perhaps  to  a 
casual  observer  that  the  ad  valorem  rates  were  surely  best  calculated 
to  meet  every  want,  and  that  when  one  yard  is  worth  four  dollars  and 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


5 


another  thirty  cents,  such  elasticity  of  value  could  only  be  properly 
met  by  ad  valorem  duties;  and  yet  the  practical  result  and  experience 
has  only  proved  the  complete  fallacy  of  this  method.  Surely  no  other 
form  of  duty  could  have  resulted  in  more  litigation  or  caused  stronger 
antagonism  between  the  importers  and  the  Government  officials,  for 
rhis  generic  term  “silk”  covers  dress  silks,  satins,  crepes,  and  velvets, 
also  handkerchiefs,  shawls,  ribbons,  hat-bands,  hats,  dress-trimmings, 
veilings,  in  fact  silks  of  every  grade,  and  also  includes  all  articles  made 
of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  part  of  chief  value. 

By  the  present  tariff  a duty  of  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  is  levied  on  silk 
cloths  of  foreign  manufacture. 

Now  the  law  provides  that  when,  for  any  reason  whatever,  the  true 
and  actual  market  value,  &c.,  cannot  be  ascertained  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  appraiser,  the  basis  for  assessment  for  the  duties  to  be  paid  shall 
be  that  which  rules  in  a foreign  market,  namely,  by  u ascertaining  the 
cost  or  value  of  the  materials  composing  such  merchandise  at  the  time 
and  place  of  manufacture,  together  with  the  expense  of  manufacturing, 
preparing,  and  putting  up  such  merchandise  for  shipment,  and  in  no 
case  shall  the  value  of  such  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  be  appraised 
at  less  than  the  total  cost  or  value  thus  ascertained.” 

So  reads  section  9 of  the  new  tariff'  of  March  3, 1883,  and  applies  to  a 
large  class  of  merchandise  consigned  to  agents  in  the  United  States  by 
manufacturers  in  foreign  countries,  and  for  which  there  is  no  foreign 
market,  for  the  reason  such  goods  are  specially  manufactured  for  sale  in 
the  United  States  only;  thus  making  the  amount  of  duty  upon  such 
goods  depend  upon  prices  in  the  country  of  production  instead  of  a home 
valuation.  In  the  history  of  commercial  legislation  there  are  few  in- 
stances recorded  in  which  such  law  has  prevailed. 

A Government  possessing,  as  our  does,  the  power  to  enforce  its  laws, 
as  a matter  of  justice  to  its  own  citizens  should  insist  that  the  valua- 
tion of  imports  upon  which  its  revenue  is  paid  be  that  ruling  within 
its  own  territory,  and  the  power  to  regulate  such  valuation  should 
always  be  kept  within  its  own  control. 

No  living  man  can  possibly  ascertain  the  value  of  silk  goods.  It  is  a 
very  serious  and  very  important  matter  to  decide  between  cost  and 
value.  These  terms  do  not  always  bear  a strong  relation  to  each  other. 
Cost  and  value  are  seldom  synonymous.  Yet  the  Government  compels 
a person  to  swear  to  the  cost  or  value,  something  it  is  not  in  the  power 
of  man  to  ascertain.  Cost  is  one  thing,  value  another.  Men  of  the 
highest  possible  intelligence  are  set  at  this  work — this  impossibility — 
and  thus  a bone  of  contention  becomes  a basis  for  calculating  duties, 
and  causes  endless  lighting  to  establish  something  impossible  to  do. 

No  language  can  be  framed  to  express  this  value,  for  the  reason  that 
this  manufacture  does  not  depend  for  its  value  upon  any  certain  condi- 
tions attending  its  production,  such,  for  example,  as  the  market  value 
of  the  raw  material,  the  quantity  of  labor  required,  &c.  No  condition 
of  this  character  has  any  controlling  influence  in  creating  for  silk  prod- 
ucts a market  value  which  can  be  established  beyond  all  dispute,  like 
cotton  or  wool  manufactures. 

Silk  goods  of  any  description  may  have  cost  a high  price  to  produce ; 
they  may  be  manufactured  from  the  highest  cost  of  raw  material  and 
by  the  most  skilled  labor,  and  yet,  from  the  mere  incident  of  colors, 
styles,  and  patterns,  they  may  be  appraised  at  a value  much  less  than 
the  cost  of  production ; while,  on  the  other  hand,  silks  inferior  in  qual- 
ity, of  raw  material,  of  less  cost,  and  perhaps  of  less  labor,  but  of  fash- 


6 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


ionable  colors  and  desirable  patterns,  may  yield  a profit  to  tbe  importer 
or  manufacturer  after  paying  a heavy  duty. 

Just  at  this  point,  as  an  important  factor,  there  enters  the  question 
of  the  amount  of  value  added  to  silk  goods  high  in  public  favor,  and 
how  much  depreciation  is  caused  when  the  same  goods  are  made  of 
combinations  and  contrasts  entirely  undesirable.  It  is  true  the  only 
matters  prescribed  in  an  appraisement  of  value  are  “the  cost  or  value 
of  the  material  composing  the  merchandise  at  the  time  and  place  of 
manufacture,  together  with  the  expense  of  manufacturing,  preparing, 
and  putting  up  the  merchandise  for  shipment,  and  the  value  so  ascer- 
tained is  made  a basis  for  the  assessment  of  duties.”  But  does  this 
form  the  whole  of  the  considerations'?  No ; much  of  the  value  depends 
on  the  style  and  colors  of  the  goods,  and  these  are  beyond  the  power  of 
legislation  to  measure  or  the  intelligence  of  Congress  to  frame  laws  to 
properly  estimate  the  value,  for  the  purpose  of  assessing  ad  valorem 
duties. 

Legislation  for  the  imposition  of  duties  should  be  uniform  in  applica- 
tion and  equally  and  justly  imposed  on  all  alike.  Certainly  this  requires 
the  largest  experience  and  the  widest  range  of  knowledge  to  provide 
for  such  contingencies  as  are  of  every-day  occurrence  in  the  business 
of  importing  silk  goods  for  the  supply  of  a nation. 

All  former  tariffs  have  had  their  basis  if  not  been  entirely  framed,  on 
the  principle  of  ad  valorem  rates. 

Since  these  have  been  productive  of  ceaseless  strife  and  irritating 
litigation,  as  a logical  conclusion  we  may  take  it  for  granted  that  by  a 
change  in  our  mode  of  assessment  to  a mixed  system  of  duties  we  shall 
avoid  many  of  our  present  troubles,  the  Government  relieved  from  its 
expensive  litigation,  and  our  merchants  from  the  present  annoying  ques- 
tion of  values. 

The  truth  is,  the  Government  since  its  foundation  has  been  attempt- 
ing to  impose  ad  valorem  rates  of  duty  on  an  article  which  from  its  na- 
ture, and  the  conditions  creating  its  value  can  only  be  assessed  for  duty, 
by  a low  rate  of  ad  valorem  and  part  specific  duty,  or  what  we  would 
term  mixed  duties. 

The  basis  of  all  legislation  for  the  imposition  of  duties  on  imports  for 
the  maintenance  and  support  of  Government,  should  be  that  each  citi- 
zen contributed  to  sustain  the  credit  of  the  Government  and  helps  to 
pay  its  obligations  in  the  just  proportion  of  his  personal  means,  and  his 
power  to  so  contribute.  Now,  to  levy  a specific  duty  on  silks  would  in 
a great  many  cases  reverse  the  natural  basis,  and  impose  a heavier  rate 
of  duty  on  a quality  of  silks  generally  used  by  the  poorer  class  of  citi- 
zens while  those  who  consumed  the  richer  goods  would  pay  the  lesser 
duty. 

To  explain,  it  is  a matter  well  known  among  merchants  and  dealers 
in  silk  cloths  that  the  poorer  quality  contains  a large  proportion  of 
artificial  weighting,  in  the  process  of  dyeing,  and  the  lowest  grades 
contain  the  most  adulteration,  consequently  under  a specific  duty  ex - 
clusively , this  class  of  silks  would  pay  more  duty  than  those  of  a better 
quality  which  has  less  of  adulteration,  and  so  on  in  regular  gradation,  the 
richer  the  silks  the  more  costly  the  fabric  and  the  less  the  proportion 
of  duty,  until  we  reach  a class  of  silks  so  costly  in  quality  of  cloth, 
fineness  of  silk  and  superior  workmanship  combined,  that  the  amount 
of  duty,  as  measured  by  weight,  when  collected  as  a specific  rate  would 
act  inversely  to  the  real  value,  causing  the  most  expensive  goods  to 
pay  the  lowest  rate  of  duty;  thus  we  see  a specific  rate  of  duty  is  not 
of  sufficient  advantage  to  warrant  its  adoption  entirely,  while  at  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


7 


same  time  it  possesses  the  merits  denied  to  ad  valorem  rates,  of  being 
uniformly  collected  and  makes  it  a matter  of  certainty  that  each  im- 
porter  would  contribute  his  just  proportion  to  the  revenue ; for  it  is  one 
of  the  complaints  by  the  importers  as  against  the  present  system  of 
ad  valorem  duties,  that  while  they  may  not  give  direct  encouragement 
to  systems  of  undervaluation  to  evade  a part  of  the  duty,  they  do  enable 
those,  who  for  any  reason  obtain  an  advantage  by  the  purchases  of  silks 
abroad,  to  receive  additional  favors  from  that  benefit  incidentally  gained ; 
and  thus  such  importers  have  a less  sum  in  duties  to  pay.  And  the 
domestic  manufacturer  is  in  no  better  position  with  an  ad  valorem  rate; 
for,  while  the  law  nominally  imposes  a rate  of  duty  sufficient  to  allow 
him  to  compete  with  his  foreign  rival,  the  inequalities  of  valuation,  or 
the  evasion  of  a portion  of  the  duties  of  the  same  class  of  goods,  render 
the  task  of  competition  hopeless  from  the  start. 

Evidently  the  Government  is  in  earnest  in  its  desires  that  the  tariff 
shall  be  so  adjusted  that  a stop  will  be  put  to  the  present  injurious 
frauds  on  the  revenue.  Now  let  them  turn  their  attention  to  this  view  of 
the  matter.  We  feel  sure  this  can  be  accomplished  by  the  adoption  of  a 
system  of  mixed  duties  on  all  silk  goods,  fixing  the  ad  valorem  duty  at 
a low  rate,  not  more  than  20  per  cent.,  and  the  specific  rate,  say  $4  per 
pound  avoirdupois.  Of  course  these  figures  are  only  suggestions,  sim- 
ply making  the  outline  of  a system,  which,  if  adopted,  would  entirely 
remove  from  the  collection  of  the  duty  on  silks,  all  the  evil  practices  of 
which  the  Government  is  so  justly  complaining,  as  embarrassing  to  the 
revenue  department  under  the  present  system. 

Indeed  we  have  the  example  of  European  Governments  who  have 
given  to  this  branch  of  industry  much  earnest  thought,  and  this  is  their 
method  of  harmonizing  all  the  varied  and  various  interests  grouped 
under  the  word  silk. 

The  objections  uniformly  urged  against  the  duties  on  silk  being  ivholly 
specific  are  self-evident,  viz,  from  the  great  variety  of  the  values  of  cloth 
produced,  no  standard  could  be  fixed  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a 
uniform  rate  of  duty  on  each,  that  would  fairly  include  them  all.  No 
specific  duty  whether  by  weight  or  measure  will  do  this,  hence  a mixed 
tariff  is  the  only  remedy  applicable  to  the  case. 

Many  and  varied  as  are  the  suggestions  of  theorists  to  divide  the 
kinds  and  qualities  of  silk  goods  into  classes  for  the  purpose  of  impos- 
ing on  each  grade  its  own  rate  of  duty,  they  are  one  and  all  impracti- 
cable; they  cannot  be  enforced  by  the  officers  of  customs,  nor  can 
persons  be  found  of  sufficient  experience  either  in  theory  or  practice  of 
the  manufacture  of  silk  to  distinguish  between  each  grade  and  define 
the  classes  and  mark  the  distinction  intelligently  between  the  differ- 
ent quality  of  silk  cloth  to  enable  the  official  to  determine  the  proper 
assessment.  And  this  is  in  no  wise  intended  as  a disparagement  upon 
the  abilities  of  the  customs  official,  since  as  a matter  of  fact  we  can 
rarely  find  two  practical  manufacturers  to  agree  as  to  the  classification 
of  silk  goods  of  similar  grade ; all  of  which  proves  the  impossibility  of 
any  such  system  simplifying  the  matter.  It  would  only  clog  the  wheels 
of  Government  and  render  legislation  in  its  application  to  the  customs 
more  of  an  enigma  than  ever. 

All  experience  has  shown  that  no  mode  of  assessing  a duty  which  is 
equal  to  50  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  goods  can  be  uniformly  col- 
lected by  the  principle  of  ad  valorem  duties;  yet  this  rate  can  be  fairly 
depended  on,  if  the  system  of  mixed  duties  is  adopted.  And  let  me 
here  give  this  additional  force  by  stating  clearly  that  the  tariff  on  silk 
cannot  be  collected  by  either  ad  valorem  or  specific  rates  separately. 


8 REPOET  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

The  ad  valorem  duty  will  be  evaded  by  undervaluation,  and  the  specific 
would  in  a great  many  classes  of  goods  amount  to  prohibition. 

While  so  many  serious  objections  are  raised  against  an  ad  valorem 
tariff  of  50  per  cent.,  they  lose  all  force  in  a duty  of  20  per  cent.,  for  the 
reason  that  any  attempt  at  evasion  or  undervaluation  with  a duty  of 
20  per  cent,  would  subject  the  merchant  or  importer  to  the  danger  of 
immediate  discovery.  The  whole  amount  of  the  ad  valorem  duty  being 
only  one-fifth  of  the  value,  to  render  this  a source  of  profit  worthy  the 
attempt  at  fraud  or  undervaluation,  the  invoicing  must  be  to  such  an 
extent  as  would  make  discovery  certain. 

In  calling  your  attention  to  this  plan  of  mixed  duties  I have  touched 
upon  the  change  of  rates,  because  they  would  naturally  follow  such  a 
method.  In  all  my  efforts  for  a mixed  tariff,  and  they  have  been  un- 
ceasing of  late  years,  my  desire  is  that  the  whole  subject  of  silk  might 
receive  the  support  of  wise  and  stable  legislation,  and  that  Congress 
should  pass  a law  so  comprehensive  in  its  scope,  so  firm  in  all  its  de- 
mands, that  by  its  operation  full  justice  would  be  done  to  the  whole 
silk  industry. 

My  interest  is  that  of  the  man  who  planted  the  seed  here  in  Paterson 
a half  century  ago,  and  hopes  yet  to  see  a strong  thrifty  tree  well 
grounded  in  American  soil  as  the  result. 

I fully  understand  that  your  circular  calls  for  analysis  of  the  relative 
difference  between  the  cost  of  silk  goods  made  in  America  and  those 
produced  in  foreign  countries,  or,  in  other  words,  the  rate  or  extent  of 
duty  needed  to  enable  the  American  manufacturer  to  compete  with  his 
foreign  rival;  also  that  you  seek  the  reasons  which  mi^ht  be  fairly 
stated  as  to  the  cause  of  the  difference,  and  the  manner  in  which  this 
difference  is  occasioned,  but  at  this  time  I have  purposely  avoided  en- 
tering upon  the  subject  in  further  detail. 

I am  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  your  exertions  to  have  the  law  so 
plain  in  its  phraseology  that  the  meaning  of  no  clause,  no  paragraph, 
can  be  wrested  from  its  truthful  significance  or  tortured  into  forming  a 
base  to  a suit  at  law  against  the  United  States  Government,  and  at  the 
same  time  a law  which  can  be  enforced  at  a minimum  cost  for  its  collec- 
tion, free  from  all  expensive  and  irritating  litigation;  and  wherever, 
through  my  fifty  years’  experience  as  a silk  manufacturer,  still  actively 
engaged,  I can  be  of  any  service  to  you,  pray  command  me. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

JOHN  RYLE. 


[Strange  & Brother,  silks.'} 

New  York,  July  22,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury , Washington , Z>.  G. : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  esteemed  favor  of  18th  instant  came  duly  to  hand. 
In  advance  of  a detailed  reply  to  your  various  questions  and  require- 
ments therein  stated,  which  need  more  time  and  attention  than  we  have 
been  able  to  devote  to  them  up  to  the  present  moment,  we  would  state: 
That  the  adoption  by  the  Government  of  a specific,  in  lieu  of  the  now 
existing  form  of  ad  valorem  duty,  is  the  best  and  only  remedy  which 
suggests  itself  to  our  minds  for  the  evil  of  undervaluation  upon  im- 
ported silk  fabrics. 

This  mode  of  assessment  has  been  seriously  and  fully  discussed  among 
domestic  manufacturers  as  well  as  importers,  and  has  been  declared  not 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


9 


only  feasible,  but  also  easily  susceptible  of  being  made  just  and  equit- 
able to  all  parties  concerned  upon  nearly  every  article  which  represents 
the  industry. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

STRANGE  & BRO. 


[John  D.  Cutter,  silks.'] 

New  York,  August  12,  1885. 
To  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

In  reply  to  your  inquiry  of  July  17,  I would  respectfully  suggest  a 
specific  tariff  upon  silk  goods  as  the  only  remedy  for  undervaluation. 
The  ordinary  objections  to  a specific  rate  of  duty  do  not  apply  to  silk 
which  in  any  form  is  an  article  of  luxury.  I propose  the  following 
classifications  and  rates  of  duty  : 

First.  That  paragraph  451,  Schedule  N,  of  the  act  to  which  this  is  an 
amendment,  be,  and  hereby  is,  repealed. 

Second.  That  the  following  shall  constitute  and  be  a substitute  for 
Schedule  L of  the  act  entitled  “An  act  to  reduce  internal-revenue  taxa- 
tion, and  for  other  purposes,”  approved  March  3,  1883. 

Schedule  L. — Silk  and  silk  goods. 

This  schedule  is  intended  to  be  exhaustive  of  silk,  and  no  provision 
of  the  act  to  which  this  is  an  amendment  shall  be  so  construed  as  to 
withdraw  from  classification  under  this  schedule  any  goods  in  the  piece 
containing  10  per  cent,  or  more  by  weight  of  silk,  or  any  article  of  which 
silk  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value. 

380  A.  Silk,  partially  manufactured  from  cocoons,  or  from  waste 
silk,  and  not  further  advanced,  or  manufactured  than  carded  or  combed 
silk,  50  cents  per  pound. 

B.  Thrown  silk  not  more  advanced  than  singles,  tram,  organziue, 
sewing  silk,  twist,  floss,  in  the  gum,  $1.50  per  pound. 

0.  The  same  when  purified  or  dyed,  $2.25  per  pound. 

D.  The  same  when  warped  or  wound,  $2.50  per  pound. 

E.  Spun  silk,  yarns  or  threads  when  not  more  advanced  than  three 
ply,  in  the  gray,  50  cents  per  pound  and  £ cent  per  skein  (840  yards) 
of  single. 

F.  The  same,  if  further  advanced  by  doubling  (as  warps  or  filloselle), 
25  cents  per  pound  additional. 

G.  And  the  same,  if  further  advanced  by  being  dyed,  stained,  or 
printed,  25  cents  per  pound  additional. 

381  A.  Asiatic  silk  goods  in  the  piece,  made  of  the  wild  cocoons  of 
Asia  (including  and  similar  to  Shanting  Pongees,  and  cloth  made  of 
the  Tusser  silk)  when  imported  from  the  country  of  production,  $1.50 
per  pound. 

B.  Asiatic  silk  goods  in  the  piece,  manufactured  from  silk  reeled 
from  the  cocoon,  but  not  thrown  or  twisted,  when  imported  from  the 
country  of  production,  $2.50  per  pound. 

G.  Asiatic  silk  goods  in  the  piece  embraced  in  paragraphs  381  A,  or 
381  B,  when  further  advanced  by  dyeing,  staining,  or  printing,  in  a 
country  other  than  that  of  production,  in  addition  to  the  rate  herein- 
before provided,  9 cents  per  square  yard. 


10 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


D.  Silk  goods  in  the  piece,  adulterated  with  dye-stuffs  or  weighing 
matters,  when  containing  less  than  66  per  cent.,  but  not  less  than  50 
per  cent,  by  weight  of  pure  silk,  $2  per  pound  and  18  cents  per  square 
yard. 

E.  The  same,  when  containing  less  than  50  per  cent.,  but  not  less 
than  40  per  cent,  by  weight  of  pure  silk;  $1.50  per  pound,  and  18  cents 
per  square  yard. 

F.  The  same,  when  containing  less  than  40  per  cent,  but  not  less 
than  30  per  cent.,  by  weight,  of  pure  silk,  $1.25  per  pound  and  18  cents 
per  square  yard. 

G.  The  same,  when  containing  less  than  30  per  cent.,  by  weight,  of 
pure  silk,  $1  per  pound  and  18  cents  per  square  yard. 

H.  Silk  goods  in  the  piece,  made  wholly  of  spun  silk,  or  containing 
50  per  cent.,  by  weight,  of  spun  silk,  the  remainder  being  some  other 
textile  than  silk,  $1.50  per  pound  and  18  cents  per  spare  yard. 

I.  Goods  in  the  piece  containing  less  than  50  per  cent,  but  not  less 
than  10  per  cent.,  by  weight,  of  spun  silk,  the  remainder  being  some 
other  textile  than  silk,  80  cents  per  pound  and  18  cents  per  square 
yard. 

J.  All  other  goods  in  the  piece,  except  as  hereinafter  provided,  com- 
posed wholly  of  silk,  or  containing  50  per  cent,  by  weight,  of  silk,  $3 
per  pound  and  18  cents  per  square  yard. 

K.  Goods  in  the  piece,  containing  less  than  50  per  cent,  but  not  less 
than  10  per  cent.,  by  weight,  of  silk,  the  remainder  being  composed 
wholly  or  chiefly  of  spun  silk,  $2  per  pound  and  18  cents  per  square 
yard. 

L.  Goods  in  the  piece,  containing  less  than  50  per  cent.,  but  not  less 
than  30  per  cent.,  by  weight,  of  silk,  the  remainder  being  some  other 
textile  than  spun  silk,  $1.60  per  pound  and  12  cents  per  square  yard. 

M Goods  ki  the  piece,  containing  less  than  30  per  cent.,  but  not  less 
than  20  per  cent,  by  weight,  of  silk,  the  remainder  being  some  other 
textile  than  spun  silk,  $1.25  per  pound  and  12  cents  per  square  yard. 

N.  Goods  in  the  piece,  containing  less  than  20  per  cent.,  but  not  less 
than  10  per  cent.,  by  weight,  of  silk,  the  remainder  being  some  other 
textile  than  spun  silk,  $1  per  pound  and  12  cents  per  square  yard. 

O.  Goods  classified  under  paragraph  381  A to  381  Q,  inclusive,  shall 
be  subject  to  the  following  rates  of  duty  in  addition  to  the  rate  or  rates 
hereinbefore  provided,  viz: 

P.  Velvet  or  plush,  cut  or  uncut,  or  fabrics  in  which  velvet  or  plush, 
cut  or  uncut,  is  combined  with  other  tissue  or  tissues,  when  the  pile  is 
made  wholly  of  spun  silk,  50  cents  per  pound. 

Q.  And  when  made  wholly  or  chiefly  of  reeled  silk,  $2  per  pound. 

R.  Jacquard  or  figured  goods,  which  require  for  their  production  not 
more  than  two  shuttles,  six  cents  per  square  yard. 

S.  And  for  each  additional  shuttle  required  in  their  production,  3 
cents  per  square  yard. 

T.  Plaids,  checks,  or  stripes  requiring  more  than  two  shuttles,  6 
cents  per  square  yard. 

U.  Embroidery,  24  cents  per  square  yard,  which  shall  be  levied 
upon  the  entire  surface  of  the  piece  upon  which  the  embroidery  is 
worked. 

382.  A.  In  ascertaining  the  percentage  of  silk  contained  in  any  of 
the  goods  described  in  paragraphs  381  H to  381  IN',  inclusive,  the  weight 
of  the  threads  shall  be  taken  as  they  are  found  in  the  fabric,  whether 
pure  or  adulterated. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


11 


B.  Ribbons,  flat  braids,  bindings,  handkerchiefs,  scarfs  (not  made 
up),  and  shawls  of  silk  shall  be  classified  as  goods  in  the  piece. 

O.  Paragraphs  381  D to  381  U,  inclusive,  shall  not  apply  to  goods  in 
the  piece  weighing  more  than  fifty-four  hundredths  of  a pound  per 
square  yard. 

383.  A.  On  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  not  otherwise  pro- 
vided for  in  this  schedule  and  not  on  the  free-list,  made  of  silk,  or  con- 
taining 10  per  cent.,  by  weight,  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  compo- 
nent material  of  chief  value,  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  D.  CUTTER, 

Union  Square , New  York  City. 


A PLEA  FOR  A SPECIFIC  TARIFF  UPON  SILKS. 

The  leading  silk  importers  of  New  York  asked  the  Tariff  Commission  for  a specific 
duty  on  silk  goods. 

The  silk  manufacturers  of  the  country  repeated  this  request,  and  the  leading  com- 
mercial papers  have  shown  a specific  tariff  to  he  the  only  true  remedy  for  existing 
evils. 

Every  one  will  admit  that  a specific  tariff  is  desirable  wherever  practicable,  because 
it  is  uniform  in  its  operation — it  serves  all  alike.  It  does  not  demand  the  skill  of  an 
expert  to  fix  the  value,  nor  does  it  admit  of  disputes,  reappraisements,  and  lawsuits. 

The  objection  to  a specific  duty  is  that  it  tends  to  bear  most  heavily  upon  the  cheap- 
est goods,  and  so  seems  to  discriminate  against  the  poor  man. 

But  this  objection  does  not  apply  to  silk.  Silk  in  any  form  is  an  article  of  luxury, 
and  the  cheaper  sorts  of  silk  are  worthless  on  account  of  adulteration,  and  ought  to 
be  discriminated  against  by  the  tariff  as  a matter  of  public  policy.  Specific  duties 
are  better  suited  to  silk  than  to  either  cotton  or  woolen  fabrics,  because  raw  silk  is 
composed  of  fine  threads,  while  cotton  and  wool  are  only  fiber,  and  the  cost  of  making 
that  fiber  into  thread  is  a very  uncertain  one.  A cotton  yarn  may  be  so  coarse  as  to 
be  worth  but  a few  cents  per  pound  more  than  raw  cotton,  and  again  it  may  be  spun 
so  fine  as  to  be  worth  more  than  silk.  The  cost  of  making  the  yarn  may  be  5 cents 
or  it  may  be  $5  per  pound. 

This  statement  applies  also,  in  a measure,  to  woolen  yarns. 

Not  so  with  silk.  Its  threads  are  not  spun  out  of  fiber  at  uncertain  cost.  The 
worm  has  already  made  the  threads  for  us,  and  made  them  finer  than  man  can  use, 
even  in  the  production  of  his  finest  fabrics,  and  it  costs  a trifle  to  double  together 
enough  of  these  fine  filaments  to  make  a thread  stout  enough  for  our  spindles  and 
shuttles. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a common  starting-point  for  the  cost  of  silk  fabrics,  viz,  the 
cost  of  the  raw  silk. 

I say,  then,  that  a specific  tariff  fits  silk  goods  like  a glove  every  way  you  look  at 
it ; it  simply  fits  and  no  wrinkles. 

To-day  silk  goods  cause  an  amount  of  labor,  trouble,  and  reapprisement  at  the 
custom-house  out  of  all  proportion  to  their  volume.  Silk  goods  are  of  great  value — 
the  difficulty  of  fixing  that  value  is  also  great — thus  the  temptation  to  undervalue 
them  is  the  maximum.  Silk  is  the  subject  of  95  per  cent,  of  all  the  reappraisements 
at  the  New  York  custom-house. 

But  there  are  other  reasons  for  a specific  tariff. 

Silk  is  an  article  of  very  unstable  value.  During  the  past  seven  years  Italian  raw 
silk  has  ranged  from  50  francs  to  140  fra  ncs  per  kilo.  All  goods  made  from  this  staple 
must  participate  in  the  fluctuations  of  the  cost  of  the  raw  material.  But,  in  addition, 
manufactured  goods  have  their  own  fluctuations,  and  of  these  silk  goods  have  more 
than  their  share,  because  silk  is  purely  an  article  of  luxury,  ornament,  and  fashion. 
General  prosperity  gives  it  a boom,  hard  times  kill  it,  and  a change  of  fashion  buries 
any  article  which  has  lost  popular  favor. 

Add  to  the  violent  fluctuations  in  the  cost  of  raw  silk,  the  ebb  and  flood  of  pros- 
perity, and  the  sum  of  these  to  the  caprices  of  fashion,  and  no  one  can  deny  that  silk 
goods  are  a most  unstable  article  of  merchandise  in  any  market.  But  to  all  these  add 
once  more,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  you  have  the  frightful  aggregate  of  contingen- 
cies which  make  up  the  value  of  imported  silk  goods  in  this  market. 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  for  a generation  it  has  been  an  axiom,  “No  jobber  of  silk 


12 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


goods  exclusively  can  live  in  New  York.”  Where  are  they,  one  and  all,  from  Arthur 
Tappan  down  ? 

Is  not  this  an  urgent  reason  for  a specific  duty  which,  by  loading  this  most  unstable 
article  of  merchandise  with  a constant  quantity,  shall  make  it  more  stable  here  than 
abroad,  rather  than  by  an  ad  valorem  duty  aggravating  and  extending  its  instability? 

But  some  say,  “ a duty  levied  per  pound  will  not  produce  the  same  result  as  ad 
volorem.”  No;  why  should  it?  If  the  duty  is  changed,  we  must  change  our  looms 
and  our  importations  to  fit  the  new  order  of  things.  Some  goods  now  imported  would 
be  made  here.  Some  now  made  here  would  have  to  be  abandoned  and  would  be  im- 
ported. The  line  would  be  drawn  clearly  and  sharply.  The  importer  would  know 
just  what  he  could  import  at  a profit,  and  the  manufacturer  just  what  he  could  manu- 
facture here.  The  uncertainties  of  the  present  situation  would  be  eliminated,  and 
both  the  home  manufacturer  and  the  importer  could  work  for  less  profit,  because  they 
would  incur  less  risk. 

The  duty  being  a certain  quantity,  commission  merchants  could  take  orders  for 
foreign  goods  on  very  exact  estimates  of  cost,  and  for  a small  commission,  and  our 
large  merchants  could  once  more  resume  their  importation's  on  their  own  account, 
which,  under  an  ad  valorem  tariff,  have  been,  are,  and  will  be  impossible,  unless  the 
would-be  importer  becomes  a custom-house  broker,  and  spends  half  his  time  watching 
what  is  going  on  at  the  public  store,  so  that  he  may  squeeze  his  goods  through  at  as 
low  a valuation  as  any  of  his  competitors. 

I have  said  the  line  would  be  clearly  drawn  between  goods  which  could  be  made 
here  and  those  which  must  be  imported. 

Suppose  that  a duty  of  $4  per  pound  is  imposed.  It  is  generally  assumed  that  the 
the  cost  of  manufacturing  silk  here  is  about  three  times  the  cost  of  the  same  in  France. 

On  these  figures  it  is  clear  that  a pound  of  raw  silk  (costing  the  same  in  Lyons  that 
it  does  in  New  York)  put  into  cloth  of  a given  texture,  at  a cost  for  labor  of  $2  per 
pound  in  Lyons,  would  in  New  York  cost  $6  per  pound.  The  duty  of  $4  would  in 
this  case  exactly  offset  the  cheap  foreign  labor,  and  put  the  importer  and  home 
manufacturer  in  direct  and  even  competition. 

But  any  fabric  which  should  cost  to  make  in  Lyons  more  than  $2  would  have  to  be 
imported — because  the  $4  duty  would  be  inadequate  protection.  For  instance,  sup- 
pose a certain  article  cost  to  make  abroad  $3  per  pound,  add  the  duty  $4=$>7,  which 
would  be  the  cost  to  import.  On  the  ratio  of  domestic  to  foreign  cost  which  we  have 
assumed,  viz,  3 to  1,  the  cost  of  making  the  same  article  here  would  be  $9,  or  $2 
more  than  the  cost  of  foreign  labor  plus  the  duty.  On  the  other  hand,  any  article  cost- 
ing to  make  here  less  than  $6  per  pound  could  not  be  imported. 

If  the  ratio  of  cost  of  foreign  and  domestic  labor  here  assumed,  viz,  3 to  1,  is  incor- 
rect, it  does  not  alter  the  argument.  The  line  between  the  goods  which  could  be  made 
here  and  those  which  could  not  would  be  distinct.  It  might  be  higher  or  it  might  be 
lower  than  the  figures  above  named,  but  it  would  fix  itself  by  the  true  ratio  of  the 
cost  here  to  the  cost  there. 

I advocate  a square-yard  duty  in  addition  to  a pound  duty,  though  some  object  to 
this  because  it  is  a “ compound”  duty. 

But  calling  a thing  a hard  name  don’t  hurt  it. 

The  labor  on  silk  is  “per  pound”  in  the  preliminary  processes,  until  you  come  to 
weaving  ; and  even  here  the  “per-pound”  duty  fits  very  well,  and  cannot  be  entirely, 
discarded.  However,  on  the  lighter  silks,  this  “per-pound”  duty  would  creep  away 
from  its  relation  to  the  cost  of  labor  and  needs  to  be  re-enforced  by  a duty  on  the  sur- 
face or  “per  square  yard.” 

A square-yard  duty  is  in  disrepute,  and  justly  so,  because  our  legislators  have  never 
made  it  simple  and  easy  to  calculate.  This  prejudice  should  be  removed,  and  the  prin- 
ciple laid  down  that  all  square-yard  duties,  as  well  as  all  limitations  of  cost  per  square 
yard,  must  be  at  the  rate  of  36  cents  per  square  yard,  or  some  multiple  of  36,  or  some 
decimal  or  aliquot  part  of  36. 

Above  I have  suggested  18  cents,  t.  e.,  i cent  per  inch  in  width.  It  requires  no  cal- 
culation. One  has  only  to  lay  a yard-stick  on  the  goods,  and  one-half  of  the  width 
in  inches  is  the  duty  per  running  yard. 

If  this  is  “ compound,”  it  is  as  easy  as  2 and  2 make  4,  and  a school-boy  could  run 
the  public  store  under  such  a tariff. 

I would  abandon  the  old  classification,  “silk,  chief  value.”  It  needs  an  expert,  and 
then  he  don’t  know  what  to  make  of  it.  Does  it  mean  the  silk  when  it  was  raw  silk, 
worth  more  than  the  cotton  or  the  wool  when  they  were  fiber  or  yarn ; or  does  it  refer 
to  each  when  at  last  each  is  in  its  place  in  the  fabric?  At  best  its  value  is  uncertain. 
No  two  men  could  agree  about  it. 

The  scales  used  in  the  appraiser’s  office,  in  the  New  York  public  store,  will  weigh 
with  accuracy  a fraction  of  a grain.  I propose  that  this  certain  and  exact  method  be 
applied  to  mixed  goods  to  determine  how  much  silk  they  contain,  and  on  this  deter- 
mination the  goods  be  classified — as  silk,  if  containing  more  than  8 per  cent  of  silk, 
and,  if  not,  then  they  must  go  in  some  other  class  anil  beyond  my  ken. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


13 


I advocate  the  folio-wing: 


Specific  tariff  for  silk  goods. 

Per  pound. 


1.  Raw  silk,  cocoons,  silk  waste,  silk- worm  eggs Free. 

2.  Combed  waste $0  50 

3.  Thrown  silk,  tram,  organzine,  and  sewings,  in  the  gum — chappe  or  spun-silk 

yarns  undyed 1 00 

4.  Same,  dyed 2 00 

5.  Asiatic  silk  goods  in  the  piece,  when  imported  from  the  country  of  produc- 

tion   3 00 

6.  All  other  silk  goods  in  the  piece,  composed  wholly  of  silk,  or  containing 

more  than  60  per  cent,  by  weight  of  silk,  18  cents  per  square  yard  -f-  $3 
per  pound. 

7.  Same,  containing  not  more  than  60  per  cent.,  but  more  than  25  per  cent., 

of  silk,  18  cents  per  square  yard  + $2  per  pound. 


8.  Same,  containing  not  more  than  25  per  cent.,  but  more  than  8 per  cent.,  of 

silk,  18  cents  per  square  yard  -f-  $1  per  pound. 

A.  Handkerchiefs,  scarfs,  and  shawls  are  to  be  classified  as  goods  in  the  piece, 

and  their  measure  is  to  be  taken  to  the  extremity  of  the  fringe  (if  any). 

B.  The  weight  of  silk  threads  is  to  be  taken  as  they  are  found  in  the  fabric, 

whether  pure  or  adulterated. 

9.  All  other  articles  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  of  chief  value, 

50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

JOHN  D.  CUTTER. 


[Wright  Brothers  & Co.,  silks  and  umbrellas.'] 

Philadelphia,  August  5, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.  : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  in  regard  to  ad  valorem  and 
specific  duties  on  merchandise,  and  as  to  how  our  business  is  affected  by 
undervaluation,  we  would  briefly  state  that  the  nature  of  our  business 
is  the  manufacture  of  umbrellas  and  parasols. 

Of  foreign  cotton  goods  we  use  and  import  but  a comparatively  small 
amount,  say  $10,000  or  less  per  annum.  The  duties  are  both  specific 
and  ad  valorem,  and  there  could  not  be  or  has  not  been  undervaluation 
to  affect  us. 

Of  foreign  woolen  goods  (alpaca  and  mohair)  we  import  to  the  extent 
of  perhaps  $25,000  per  annum.  The  duties  on  these,  too,  are  both 
specific  and  ad  valorem,  and,  though  enormously  high,  we  are  not  in- 
juriously affected  by  undervaluation. 

Of  foreign  silk  goods  we  use  to  the  extent  of  about  $175,000  per  year, 
but  do  not  and  cannot  import  any,  on  account  of  the  uniform  and  gross 
undervaluation,  notwithstanding  we  have  a buyer  in  Europe  every  year, 
and  provided  with  unlimited  credit. 

We  doubt  whether  any  prominent  manufacturer  or  agent  would  even 
quote  us  prices  in  francs,  but  instead  quote  prices  in  dollars  and  cents, 
goods  deliverable  through  their  agents  in  New  York. 

The  goods  are  consigned  to  an  agent  in  this  country,  and  undervalued. 
While  we  cannot  verify  it,  we  do  not  believe  that  95  per  cent,  of  the 
silk  goods  that  come  into  this  country  pay  duties  on  more  than  60  to  70 
per  cent,  on  actual  value.  We  believe  that  the  just  way  of  collecting 
duties  is  by  ad  valorem  rates,  hut  as  it  seems  impossible  to  collect  them 
honestly  by  that  system  on  sillc  goods,  we  would  favor  the  mixed  rate 
of,  say,  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem  and  — cents  per  square  yard.  It  would 
be  advisable,  however,  where  the  material  is  part  cotton  (cotton  or  linen, 
or  other  fiber  than  silk  preponderating  in  weight),  to  retain  the  15  per 


14 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


cent,  ad  valorem  rate,  but  to  make  the  specific  rate  much  lower  than  on 
all  silk  goods.  Possibly  the  specific  rate  might  be  adjudged  at  — cents 
per  pound  in  place  of  a rate  per  square  yard. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

WEIGHT  BROTHERS  & CO. 


[The  same.] 

Philadelphia,  October  22, 1885. 

C.  S.  Fairchild,  Esq., 

Assistant  Secretary , Treasury  Department , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  letter  of  21st  instant  is  at  hand,  in  which  you  refer 
to  that  portion  of  our  letter  of  20th  relating  to  discrimination  against 
us  as  manufacturers  under  existing  rates  of  duties,  &c.,  and  asking 
what  rates  of  duties  od  the  manufactured  articles  (umbrellas  aud  para- 
sols), or  on  the  materials  thereof,  should,  in  our  opinion,  be  levied. 

We  must  still  reiterate  our  opinion  that  on  any  complete  manufact- 
ured article  the  rate  of  duty  should  be  higher  than  is  exacted  on  its 
chief  component  part  or  parts. 

Silk  umbrellas  are  largely  imported  and  at  a little  less  cost  than  we 
* can  manufacture  them.  We  have  to  pay  50  per  cent,  duty  on  the  silks, 
while  the  umbrellas  also  come  in  at  same  rate.  We  think,  therefore, 
that  if  the  rate  on  silks  is  to  remain  at  50  per  cent.,  then  the  duty  on 
silk  umbrellas  should  be  60  per  cent. 

In  alpaca  or  mohair  umbrellas,  where  the  cloths  pay  80  to  85  per  cent, 
and  the  umbrellas  only  50  per  cent.,  we  might  similarly  ask  on  um- 
brellas a rate  of,  say,  95  per  cent. ; but  they  are  not  largely  imported  as 
yet , and,  believing  in  the  absurdity  of  asking  such  a high  nominal  rate, 
we  would  suggest  a uniform  rate  of  60  per  cent,  on  all  umbrellas  and 
parasols  of  whatever  material. 

Our  interest  in  foreign  fabrics  of  silk  or  wool,  alpaca,  &c.  (however 
important  to  ourselves  as  manufacturers  of  umbrellas,  &c.),  is  so  insig- 
nificant compared  with  the  general  consumption  of  such  classes  of  goods 
that  we  do  not  feel  authorized  to  express  an  opinion  as  to  what  rates 
they  should  pay,  nor  would  we  be  able  to  give  a fair  opinion  without 
that  thorough  investigation  of  all  the  points  that  we  are  hardly  able  to 
make. 

Our  interests  might  be  justly  protected  through  u drawbacks,”  but 
such  a system  opens  the  door  so  wide  for  frauds  that  we  cannot  recom- 
mend it. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

WRIGHT  BROTHERS  & CO. 


[Ellis,  Knapp  & Co.,  umbrellas  and  parasols.] 


Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury , 

Washington , D.  G.  : 


Few  York,  December  4,  1885. 


Dear  Sir  : In  response  to  your  circular  sent  us  on  the  question  of 
tariff  revision,  we  desire  to  say,  that  we  fail  to  see  how  a change  from 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


15 


ad  valorem  to  specific  duty  could,  in  our  business,  make  an  equitable 
adjustment  of  values.  It  in  applying  specific  duty  any  question  of 
values  is  raised,  the  Government  would  have  the  same  difficulty  to  en- 
counter as  now  confronts  it  in  the  present  undervaluations.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  values  are  not  to  be  considered,  the  duty  would  unques- 
tionably operate  unfairly  on  either  the  low  or  high  grade  of  goods,  and 
thus  prove  prejudicial  to  their  manufacture  in  this  country.  Our  busi- 
ness is  already  handicapped  with  foreign  labor  in  not  having  the  duty 
on  manufactured  umbrellas  higher  than  the  material  of  which  the  article 
is  principally  composed,  consequently  any  additional  burden  would 
doubtlessly  result  in  withdrawal  of  capital.  But,  aside  from  the  feasi- 
bility of  a change  of  tariff,  the  mere  agitation  of  the  subject  by  the  forth- 
coming Congress  would  result  disastrously  to  the  general  business  of 
the  country,  just  at  the  time  when  it  is  beginning  to  recover  from  the 
long  depression  and  is  exceedingly  sensitive  to  any  drawback  what- 
ever. We  sincerely  trust,  therefore,  that  wiser  counsel  may  prevail  and 
the  matter  be  allowed  to  rest  for  the  present. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

ELLIS,  KNAPP  & CO. 


[John  V.  Farwell  & Co.,  dry  goods."] 

Chicago,  September  9, 1885. 
The  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

Dear  Sir:  [Replying  to  your  circular  letter  of  July  22  in  regard  to 
tariff  reform,  we  would  say  that  as  far  as  textile  fabrics  are  concerned 
we  regard  a specific  duty  both  feasible  and  in  every  way  desirable. 

Without  going  into  technical  terms  or  details,  which  your  experts 
can  supply,  we  would  suggest  as  a general  principle  that  different  spe- 
cific duties  be  levied  according  to  the  raw-material  organization  of  the 
fabric,  viz,  silk,  silk  and  wool,  silk  and  cotton,  all  wool,  all  cotton,  cot- 
ton and  wool,  &c.,  and  that  these  classes  be  subdivided,  with  different 
duties,  according  to  some  well  known  and  easily  defined  generic  terms, 
viz,  velvets  and  silks,  cashmeres  and  fancy  woolen  fabrics,  linen  dress 
goods,  crash  toweling,  table  damask,  &c.,  which  can  easily  be  arranged 
by  experts. 

The  equivalents  to  present  duties  can  best  be  arranged  by  your  ex- 
perts, but  we  would  advise  that  they  be  amply  sufficient  to  protect  us 
on  the  low-priced  fabrics,  which,  of  course,  a specific  duty  will  tend  to 
do,  and  that  the  undervaluations  now  in  vogue  be  carefully  taken  into 
consideration  in  this  adjustment. 

As  to  your  last  question,  we  are  entirely  unable  to  import  any  silks 
or  Hamburg  edgings,  being  sometimes  able  to  purchase  such  goods 
laid  down  in  New  York  duty  paid,  as  cheaply  as  from  the  manufactur- 
ers on  the  Continent.  We  are  obliged  to  purchase  all  such  goods  from 
“importers.” 

####### 

We  would  also  advise  the  entire  removal  of  the  duties  on  raw  mate- 
rials and  dye-stuffs,  feeling  confident  that  no  change  in  the  tariff  would 
do  more  to  increase  our  trade  with  foreign  countries  on  textile  fabrics. 


16 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


and,  by  opening  up  this  outlet,  tend  to  prevent  the  great  and  violent 
fluctuations  in  prices,  which  are  so  disastrous  to  a healthy  industrial 
growth.  We  are  gratified  to  know  that  this  matter  is  being  investi- 
gated, and  respectfully  submit  the  above  as  our  general  opinions.  Any 
questions  we  can  answer  we  should  be  glad  to  have  asked. 

Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  Y.  FARWELL  & CO. 


[Weatherby,  Stevens  & Co.,  dry  goods . ] 

Cincinnati,  July  27, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir:  In  our  opinion  it  would  be  unwise  and  seriously  disturb 
the  business  of  the  country  to  make  any  radical  change  in  the  revenue 
laws. 

A specific  duty,  it  seems  to  us,  would  increase  the  price  of  the  cheaper 
grades  of  goods,  and  at  the  same  time  reduce  the  price  of  the  finer 
grades,  thus  putting  additional  burdens  on  the  poor  and  laboring  classes 
of  our  people. 

To  insure  proper  appraisement  an  advisory  board  should  be  j)rovided 
for  to  act  in  connection  with  the  appraiser  of  merchandise,  this  board 
to  be  composed  of  well-known  business  men,  whose  records  are  clean  on 
the  books  of  the  Treasury  Department,  and  who  shall  be  paid  for  their 
services  out  of  the  United  States  Treasury,  the  board  to  be  called  upon 
to  act  only  when  complaint  is  made,  by  a responsible  party  or  firm,  of 
injustice  in  appraisement. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

WEATHERBY,  STEVENS  & CO. 


[Lee,  Tweedy  & Co.,  dry  goods.  ] 

New  York,  August  12,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Your  communication  of  the  1st  instant  is  before  us,  and 
we  take  pleasure  in  responding  as  far  as  possible  to  your  request. 

We  assume  it  to  be  a fact,  and  the  result  of  onr  experience  of  forty 
years  in  the  dry  goods  importing  business  is,  that  with  an  ad  valorem 
tariff'  ranging  from  44  to  100  per  cent,  upon  dry  goods  there  will  al- 
ways be  evasion  of  the  law,  and  honest  importers  will  have  to  suffer  as 
a consequence.  Specific  duties  would  undoubtedly  correct  undervalua- 
tion ; but,  while  abolishing  the  ad  valorem  system  and  substituting 
specific  to  such  degree  as  to  be  equal  to  the  existing  high  rate  above 
stated,  although  the  possibility  of  bribery  and  collusion  would  be  to  a 
very  large  extent  done  away  with,  yet  the  fact  of  such  high  rates  exist- 
ing holds  out  temptation,  and  new  methods  mav  be  adopted  to  evade 
the  payment  of  the  legal  duties.  The  safety  of  the  Government  in  the 
collection  of  its  just  revenue,  therefore,  is  in  the  lowering  of  the  rates. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


17 


As  much  revenue  would  be  collected,  and,  we  may  add,  it  would  en- 
courage the  old  standard  houses  to  continue  in  the  business  of  import- 
ing direct,  for  it  is  a fact  that  nearly  80  per  cent,  of  the  foreign  goods 
sold  to-day  in  the  wholesale  markets  of  the  United  States  are  “landed” 
in  dollars  and  cents  by  foreign  manufacturers7  agents  temporarily  resi- 
dent here,  and  you  can  readily  understand  why  American  merchants 
are  obliged  to  buy  their  goods  from  this  class  of  u landing”  importers. 
We  have  imported  similar  goods  to  those  u landed”  until  we  have  been 
almost  completely  shut  out  of  the  business.  They  can  sell  us  the  goods 
at  a good  profit  to  themselves  and  then  be  cheaper  than  we  can  import 
them ; and  they  do  not  stop  at  that,  but  will  make  regular  tours  through 
the  large  cities  and  take  orders  for  delivery. 

The  business  of  the  honest  importer  is  of  short  duration  unless  some- 
thing is  done,  and  we  will  hail  with  delight  any  effort  Congress  may 
make  to  put  a stop  to  such  open  and  outrageous  frauds. 

The  writer  of  this  has  endeavored  to  impress  upon  the  various  com- 
missions which  have  been  in  this  city  “to  inquire  into  the  causes,”  &c., 
that  the  only  remedy  to  be  relied  upon  is  a reduction  of  the  rates 
all  around,  and,  if  that  is  impracticable,  then  the  old  English  method 
of  allowing  all  parties  to  enter  the  goods  and,  if  suspicion  of  under- 
valuation exists,  then  the  Government,  at  its  option,  can  take  them  at 
the  face  value  of  the  invoice  so  entered,  plus  10  i>er  cent.,  and  then  dis- 
pose of  them  at  public  auction. 

Pardon  our  digression  from  the  subject  matter  of  your  letter,  as  we 
are  reminded  that  you  inquire  more  particularly  from  merchants  their 
views  as  to  the  feasibility  of  substituting  specific  rates  for  ad  valorem, 
and  not  as  to  the  reduction  of  them. 

We  think  it  is  feasible,  and  as  evidence  of  our  conclusions  we  refer 
you  to  the  tables  inclosed,  which  we  have  had  carefully  prepared  in 
our  office  to  go  with  this  reply.  The  principal  fabrics  in  which  we  deal, 
and  which  suffer  so  much  by  undervaluation,  are:  Silks,  all-wool  and 

wool-mixed  dress-goods,  shawls,  and  hosiery.  The  tables  we  refer  to 
are  for  all-wool  and  wool-mixed  dress  goods.  Column  D gives  the 
range  of  prices  from  6 cents  per  square  yard  up  to  $2.  Columus  A,  B, 
0 are  the  exact  amounts  in  British,  French,  and  German  currencies 
(to  the  nearest  decimal),  which  equals  our  currency  (D).  For  example, 
1.04  francs,  0.84  mark,  and  9.8 6d.  sterling,  all  equal  our  20  cents.  The 
three  double  columns  at  the  right  of  column  D show  the  present  rates 
of  duty  per  square  yard,  equal  to  the  compound  rates  of  5.35,  7.40,  and 
9.40  and  the  equivalents  of  the  same  by  per  cent.  For  example,  goods 
at  9.37  (say,  9f d.  sterling)  under  20  cents  in  value  per  square  yard, 
hence  paying  5 cents  per  square  yard  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  the 
total  of  these  two  rates  put  specific  on  the  square  yard  is  11.65  cents, 
and  that  is  the  equal  of  61  per  cent.  If  goods  at  the  same  price  ster- 
ling be  narrower,  so  that  the  value  per  square  yard  exceeds  20  cents, 
then  the  duty  is  7 cents  per  square  yard  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
The  total  duty  of  these  two  rates  when  put  specific  on  the  square  yard 
is  14.60  cents,  and  the  equal  of  that  is  77  per  cent.  Bead  the  9.40  col- 
umn in  tbe  same  way,  but  observe  there  is  no  change  of  the  rate  on 
all-wool  goods  based  on  the  value  of  the  square  yard. 

You  will  see  by  this  table  how  etfsy  it  is  to  defraud  the  Government 
by  undervaluing  Id.  sterling  or  0 10  franc.  Ten  per  cent,  undervalua- 
tion gives  3\  and  4 per  cent,  unlawful  gain.  But  one  of  the  best  oppor- 
tunities, and  a great  temptation,  is  at  the  turning  point  where  rates 
change  from  5.35  to  7.40 — where  the  square  yard  value  exceeds  20 
S.  Ex.  72 2 


18 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


cents.  At  that  point,  by  undervaluing  even  1 cent,  the  gain  instead  of 
3J  is  15  per  cent.,  which  please  see. 

Now,  the  important  problem  arises  how  to  abolish  the  35  and  40  per 
cent,  and  place  the  equivalent  by  specific  duty  on  the  square  yard  or  on 
the  weight.  We  will  confine  ourselves  in  this  answer  to  the  column 
9.40.  We  there  find  already  a uniform  rate  of  9 cents  on  every  yard 
and  at  every  price,  hence  a disproportionate  value — (the  higher  priced 
goods  being  proportionately  the  cheaper).  Now,  suppose  we  take  away, 
for  example,  the  40  per  cent,  from  the  goods  costing  1.50  francs,  that 
would  be  11.60  cents  to  be  put  specific  on  either  the  square  yard  or 
upoD  the  weight,  and  as  the  quality  of  goods  is  known  by  its  count  of 
threads  and  twills,  by  its  weight,  and  by  its  classification,  we  think  the 
11.60  could  be  placed.  The  making  of  a table  of  such  rates  so  regu- 
lated by  twills,  weight,  and  classification  we  feel  confident  could  be 
effected  by  a committee  of  intelligent  business  men  who  are  familiar 
with  the  various  textures.  They  would  get  so  near  to  it  that  the 
present  basis  would  not  be  seriously  disturbed. 

If,  however,  by  any  means  it  should  appear  that  the  plan  we  have 
suggested  cannot  be  made  practicable,  then  a reduction  of  the  ad  valorem 
rate  to  20  per  cent,  would  leave  but  20  per  cent,  to  be  distributed 
specific,  and  diminish  the  profit  of  the  fraud  one  half. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

LEE,  TWEEDY  & CO., 
Per  WILLIAM  H.  LEE. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF 


19 


Rates  of  duty  on  dress  goods  under  four  ounces  per  square  yard. 

[Equivalents:  Franc =19. 30  cents;  mark=23.80  cents;  £1=486.65  cents.] 


Franc, 
pr.  sq.  yd. 

Mark, 
pr.  sq.  yd. 

Ste^i-ng, 
pr.  sq.  yd. 

United 
States, 
pr.  sq.  yd. 

Franc. 

Mark. 

s.  d. 

0. 31 

0.25 

2.  96 

$0  06 

.36 

.29 

3.  45 

07 

.41 

.34 

3.  91 

08 

.47 

.38 

4.  44 

09 

.52 

.42 

4.  93 

10 

.57 

.46 

5.  42 

11 

.62 

.50 

5.  91 

12 

.67 

. 55 

6.  41 

13 

.73 

.59 

6.  90 

14 

.78 

.63 

7.40 

15 

.83 

.67 

7.  89 

16 

.88 

.71 

8.  38 

17 

.93 

.76 

8.  88 

18 

.98 

.80 

9.  37 

19 

1.04 

.84 

9.  86 

20 

1.09 

.88 

10.  36 

21 

1.14 

.92 

10.  85 

22 

1. 19 

.97 

11.34 

23 

1.  24 

1.01 

11.84 

24 

1.30 

1.  05 

12.33 

25 

1.  35 

1.  09 

12.  82 

26 

1.  40 

1. 13 

13.  32 

27 

1.  45 

1. 18 

13.  81 

28 

1.  50 

1.  22 

14.  30 

29 

1.  55 

1.  26 

14.  80 

30 

1.  61 

1.  30 

15.  29 

31 

1.  66 

1.  34 

1 03| 

32 

1.71 

1.  39 

1 044 

33 

1.76 

1.  43 

1 04J 

34 

1.81 

1.  47 

1 05J 

35 

1.87 

1.51 

1 05| 

36 

1.92 

1.55 

1 064 

37 

1.97 

1.  60 

1 064 

38 

2.  02 

1.  64 

1 074 

39 

2.  07 

1.  68 

1 074 

40 

2. 12 

1.  72 

1 084 

41 

2. 18 

1.76 

1 084 

42 

2.  23 

1.  81 

1 094 

43 

2.  28 

1.85 

1 094 

44 

2.  33 

1.  89 

l 104 

45 

2.  38 

1.93 

l 104 

46 

2.44 

1.97 

l 114 

47 

2.  49 

2.  02 

l lif 

48 

2.  54 

2.  06 

2 004 

49 

2.  59 

2. 10 

2 OOf 

50 

2.  85 

2.31 

2 034 

55 

• 3.11 

2.  52 

2 05§ 

60 

3.  37 

2.  73 

2 08 

65 

3.  63 

2.  94 

2 104 

70 

3.89 

3.  15 

3 01 

75 

4.15 

3.  36 

3 034 

80 

4.  40 

3.  57 

3 06 

85 

4.  66 

3.  78 

3 08f 

90 

4.  92 

3.  99 

3 10| 

95 

5.18 

4.  20 

4 014 

1 00 

5.70 

4.  62 

4 064 

1 10 

6.  22 

5.  04 

4 114 

1 20 

6.  74 

5.  46 

5 044 

1 30 

7.  25 

5.  88 

5 09 

1 40 

7.  77 

6.  30 

6 02 

1 50 

8.  29 

6.  72 

7 07 

1 60 

8.  81 

7. 14 

7 00 

1 70 

9.  33 

7.  56 

7 04 4 

1 80 

9.  84 

7.  98 

7 094 

1 90 

10.  36 

8.40 

8 03 

2 00 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Dress  goods  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool. 


5.35 

Goods  under  20  cts. 
in  value  per  sq. 
yd.  paying  5 cts. 
per  sq.  yd.  and 
35  % ad  v. 

Equals 
duty, 
sq.  yd. 

Equals 
ad  valo- 
rem. 

Cents. 
7. 10 
7.  45 

7.  80 
8.15 

8.  50 

8.  85 

9.  20 
9.  55 
9.  90 

10.  25 
10.  60 

10.  95 

11.  30 
11.65 

12.  00 
U) 

Per  cent. 
118 
106 
98 
90 
85 
80 
77 
73 
71 
68 
61 
64 
63 
61 
60 

(*) 

E 

7.40 

Goods  over  20  cts. 
in  value  per  sq. 
yd.  paying  duty 
7 cts.  per  sq.  yd. 
and  40  % ad  v. 


9.40 

All  wool  goods  over 
or  under  20  cts. 
paying  9 cts.  per 
sq.  yd.  and  40  % 
ad  v. 


Equals 
duty, 
sq.  yd. 

Equals 
ad  valo- 
rem. 

Equals 
duty, 
sq.  yd. 

Equals 
ad  valo- 
rem. 

Cents. 

Per  cent. 

Cents. 

Per  cent. 

9.  40 

157 

11.40 

190 

9. 80 

140 

11.80 

169 

10.  20 

128 

12.  20 

153 

10.  60 

118 

12. 60 

140 

11.00 

110 

13.  00 

130 

11.40 

104 

13. 40 

122 

11.  80 

' 98 

13. 80 

115 

12.  20 

94 

14.  20 

109 

12.  60 

90 

14.  60 

104 

13.  00 

87 

15.  00 

100 

13. 40 

84 

15.40 

96 

13. 80 

81 

15.  80 

93 

14.  20 

79 

16.  20 

90 

14.  60 

77 

16.  60 

87 

15.  00 

75 

17.  00 

85 

15.  40 

73 

17.  40 

83 

15.  80 

72 

17.  80 

81 

16.  20 

70 

18.  20 

79 

16.  60 

69 

18.  60 

78 

17.  00 

68 

19.  00 

76 

17.  40 

67 

19.  40 

75 

17.  80 

66 

19.  80 

73 

18.  20 

65 

20.  20 

72 

18.  60 

64 

20.  60 

71 

19.  00 

63 

21.00 

70 

19.  40 

62 

21.40 

69 

19.  80 

62 

21.80 

68 

20.  20 

61 

22.  20 

67 

20.  60 

61 

22.  60 

66 

21.00 

60 

23.  00 

21.40 

59 

23.  40 

65 

21.  80 

23.  80 

64 

22.  20 

58 

24.  20 

22.  60 

24.60 

63 

23.  00 

57 

25.  00 

23  40 

25.  40 

62 

23.  80 

25.  80 

61 

24.  20 

56 

26.  20 

24.  60 

26.  60 

25.  00 

27.  00 

60 

25.40 

55 

27.  40 

25.  80 

27.  80 

• 59 

26.  20 

28.  20 

26.  60 

54 

28.  60 

58 

27.00 

29.  00 

57 

29.  00 

53 

31.  00 

56 

31.00 

52 

33.  00 

55 

33.  00 

51 

35.  00 

54 

35.  00 

50 

37.00 

53 

37.  00 

49 

39.  00 

52 

39.  00 

41.  00 

51 

41.  00 

48 

43.  00 

43.  00 

45.  00 

50 

45.  00 

47 

47.  00 

47.  00 

49.  00 

49 

51.00 

46 

53.  00 

55.  00 

57.  00 

48 

59.  00 

61.00 

47 

63.  00 

45 

65.  00 

67.  00 

69.  00 

46 

71.  00 

73.  00 

45 

75.  00 

44 

77.  00 

79.  00 

81.00 

83.  00 

85.  00 

87.  00 

m 

89.  00 

44£ 

* When  the  value  per  square  yard  exceeds  20  cents  the  duty  advances  to  7 cents  and  40  per  cent. 


20 


REPORT  OP  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[Marshall  Field  & Co.,  dry  goods. ] 


Chicago,  October  — 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir:  Replying  to  your  letter  of  July  27,  we  have  the  honor  to  submit 
the  following : 

Our  endeavor  has  been  to  substitute  specific  for  ad  valorem  rates, 
especially  on  such  merchandise  as  we  have  suffered  injury  on  because 
of  undervaluation. 

We  think  the  present  rates  of  duty  entirely  too  high,  and  would 
recommend  a reduction  on  all  dry  goods  to  rates  not  to  exceed  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  would  have  the  law  simplified  so  that  there 
would  be,  as  far  as  possible,  no  doubtful  classifications. 

We  see  no  necessity  of  making  the  tariff  so  complicated  that  it  can 
be  read  and  understood  differently  by  collector  and  appraiser  at  differ- 
ent ports. 

It  is  of  the  greatest  importance  that  the  same  rates  on  like  articles 
be  collected  at  all  the  ports  in  the  country. 

We  have  knowrn  Chicago  importers  to  clear  their  goods  at  New  York 
because  the  appraisers  there  were  more  liberal  in  their  classifications. 
Probably  not  more  than  one-half  khe  imported  goods  distributed  at 
Chicago  are  passed  through  the  custom-house  here,  although  it  is  much 
more  convenient. 


We  believe  that  if  specific  rates  are  adopted  the  amount  of  duties  we 
pay  each  year  will  be  doubled;  or,  in  other  words,  the  business  we  are 
no  w obliged  to  do  through  aliens  will  be  done  by  ourselves. 

We  believe  in  severe  penalties,  equal,  if  need  be,  to  double  the  amount 
of  duty,  where  the  Government  can  clearly  establish  false  values  or  in- 
tentional attempt  to  defraud  the  revenue  by  means  of  falsification  of 
invoices  as  regards  weights,  count,  measures,  &c. 

In  answer  to  your  question  as  to  what  classes  of  merchandise  we  have 
suffered  greatest  injury  on  account  of  evasions  of  the  tariff,  we  submit 
the  following,  and  would  say  that  a large  proportion  of  the  goods  so 
named  are  manufactured  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  coming  mainly 
from  France,  Switzerland,  Belgium,  Germany,  Austria,  and  Italy : 

Silk  piece  goods  and  plushes;  wool  and  mohair  plushes;  silk  and 
silk  and  cotton  velvets;  silk  and  velvet  ribbons;  silk  trimmings  ; pearl 
buttons;  Swiss  and  French  embroideries;  silk,  cotton,  and  wool  laces; 
cloaks  and  other  garments;  wool,  worsted,  and  silk  shawls;  wool, 
worsted,  and  mohair  dress  goods;  perfumery  and  toilet  articles;  kid, 
leather,  silk,  cotton,  and  woolen  gloves. 

The  following  is  a schedule  showing  rates  of  duty  which,  in  our 
opinion,  should  be  levied  upon  the  various  kinds  and  qualities  of  mer- 
chandise named : 


Women’s  and  children’s  dress  goods  and  real  or  imitation  Italian  cloths,  composed 
wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  like 


animals,  weighing  under  4 ounces  to  the  square  yard per  square  yard.. 

Over  4 ounces  to  the  square  yard do 

Knit  goods,  hosiery,  underwear,  gloves,  &c.,  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of 

wool,  worsted,  hair  of  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  like  animals per  pound.. 

Braids,  wool  or  mohair. do 

Yarns,  wool,  mohair,  or  worsted do 

Shawls do 

Cloaks do 

Clothing do 

All  other  manufactures  of  wool,  not  otherwise  provided do 


Cents. 


6 

8 

80 

50 

50 

80 

80 

80 

60 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


21 


CARPETS. 


Cents. 

Aubusson,  Axmiuster,  Moquette,  Wilton  and  velvet per  square  yard- . 60 

Body  Brussels do 50 

Tapestry  Brussels do 40 

Ingrain  Brussels do 30 


Rugs  subject  to  same  rates  of  duty  as  imposed  on  carpets  or  carpeting  of  like 
character  of  description. 

We  would  recommend  that  no  distinction  be  made  in  the  classifica- 
tion of  wool  and  of  worsted. 


LINENS. 

Ad  valorem. 

Brown  and  bleached  canvas,  crash,  damasks,  diapers,  drills,  and  coating  ducks, 
handkerchiefs,  lawns,  padding,  laces,  and  embroideries,  and  all  manufact- 
ures of  flax,  jute,  and  hemp per  cent. . 25 


COTTONS. 


All  woven  fabrics  of  cotton  in  the  piece,  properly  coming  within  the  designation  of 
cloth,  and  bought  and  sold  by  linear  measurement,  and  the  threads  of  which  can  be 
counted,  should  pay  the  following  rates  of  duty,  except  such  as  are  specially  named 
and  provided  for : 


Cents. 

If  unbleached,  and  under  100  threads  to  square  inch per  sq.  yd..  2 

If  bleached,  stained,  or  painted do 3 

If  unbleached  and  over  100  and  under  200  threads do 3 

If  bleached,  stained,  or  painted do 4 

If  unbleached  and  over  200  threads  to  square  inch do ... . 4 

If  bleached,  stained,  or  painted do 5 


A<1  valorem. 

Cotton  binding,  braces,  braids,  drawers,  yarns,  and  thread,  shirts,  embroideries, 
laces,  marking-cotton,  floss,  gimps,  fringes,  gloves,  handkerchiefs,  hosiery, 
curtains,  trimmings,  velvets,  wearing-apparel,  terry,  plush,  and  all  manu- 
facures  of  cotton,  or  of  which  cotton  is  the  component  material  of  chief 
value per  cent . . 25 


SILK. 


All  manufactures  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  material  of  chief 

value,  usually  bought  and  sold  by  linear  measure per  pound..  $2  50 

Silk  hosiery,  underwear,  braids,  ribbons,  trimmings,  buttons,  gloves,  &c.,  per 

pound 2 00 

All  other  manufactures,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  material . .per  pound . . 2 00 


KID  OR  LEATHER  GLOVES. 

All  kid  gloves  not  exceeding  12  inches  from  tip  of  third  finger  to  top  of  glove, 


per  dozen 2 50 

If  over  12  inches  and  under  15  inches per  dozen. . 3 00 

If  over  15  inches do 4 00 

Lambskin  or  schmaschen,  not  exceeding  12  inches do 2 00 

If  over  12  inches  and  under  15  inches do 2 50 

If  over  15  inches do 3 00 


All  leather  gloves  of  every  description  having  felt,  cloth,  plush,  or  other  lining,  or 
if  faced  with  other  fabrics,  subject  to  same  rates  of  duty  as  above. 


Alcoholic  perfumery * per  gallon..  10  00 

Soap per  pound . . 10 

Face  powder percent,  ad  valorem..  25 


SUNDRIES. 

All  kinds  baskets,  beads,  and  bead  ornaments,  brushes,  buttons  (including 
brass  and  gilt),  card-cases,  pocket-books,  and  similar  articles;  clocks,  combs, 
dolls,  and  toys;  metal  galloons,  laces,  knots,  stars,  tassels,  thread,  etc. ; fans, 
articles  and  garments  of  fur,  hair  cloth,  India-rubber  fabrics  composed  wholly 
or  in  part  of  rubber,  jet,  and  imitations  of,  jewelry,  and  imifatious  of,  articles 
and  manufactures  of  leather,  papier-mach6,  pencils,  umbrellas,  parasols, 

watches,  and  webbing  composed  of  any  material per  cent,  ad  valorem..  25 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 


MARSHALL  FIELD  & CO. 


22  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY 

[Arnold,  Constable  & Co.,  dry  goods.] 

New  York,  October  5, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Secretary: 

Sir:  In  answer  to  your  circular  we  beg  to  say — 

That  we  have  given  the  inquiries  therein  mentioned  our  careful  con- 
sideration. J n the  present  tariff  the  duties  are  almost  entirely  of  ad 
valorem  rates,  and  where  double  duties  are  collected  the  ad  valorem  is 
so  high  as  to  give  the  foreign  manufacturer  a large  profit  in  undervalua- 
tion; this  has  driven  the  honest  American  importer  entirely  from  the 
market  in  many  articles,  such  as  silks,  velvets,  and  dress  goods,  com- 
pelling him  to  have  his  goods  delivered  here  in  dollars  and  cents  by  the 
agents  of  foreign  manufacturers. 

We  have  submitted  a tariff  which  we  think  would  yield  the  Govern- 
ment about  80  per  cent,  of  the  present  revenue.  We  have  added  a double 
rate  of  duty  as  being  more  just  to  the  consumers  of  the  lower-priced 
articles.  The  ad  valorem  is  always  at  10  per  cent. ; now,  if  the  under- 
valuation was  25  per  cent.,  it  would  only  make  a difference  of  2J  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  which  the  honest  importer  could  stand. 

Very  respectfully, 

•AENOLD,  CONSTABLE  & CO. 


Wools  and  all  raw  materials  should  be  admitted  free  of  duty,  to  enable  the  American 
manufacturer  to  ship  goods  to  foreign  countries  free. 

Manufacturers  of  wool  and  worsted  should  pay  the  same  rate  of  duty. 

COTTON  MANUFACTURES. 

On  all  manufactures  of  cotton  of  every  description,  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Cotton  being  a product  of  this  country,  a duty  of  20  per  cent,  should  be  ample  pro- 
tection. The  import  charges  are  about  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  which  really  gives 
a protection  of  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

LINENS,  ETC. 

On  all  manufactures  of  whatever  description,  composed  of  flax,  hemp,  nr  jute,  25 
per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Very  few  if  any  linens,  &c.,  are  manufactured  in  this  country;  the  reduction  there- 
fore would  not  interfere  with  any  American  industry. 

WOOLENS,  ETC. 

Cloths,  cassimeres,  shawls,  table-covers,  and  all  manufactures  that  can  be  measured, 
not  otherwise  provided  for,  composed  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat, 
or  other  animal,  or  when  mixed  with  material  of  less  value,  30  cents  per  square  yard 
and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Braids,  bindings,  fringes,  cords,  tassels,  embroideries,  laces,  insertings,  shirts, 
drawers,  hosiery,  clothing,  in  whole  or  in  part  made  up,  and  all  articles  known  as  small 
wares,  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or 
other  animal,  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Blankets,  composed  of  wool  or  worsted  or  when  mixed  with  a material  of  less  value, 
valued  at  not  exceeding  20  cents  per  pound,  10  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad 
valorem ; valued  at  over  20  cents  per  pound  and  not  exceeding  30  cents  per  pound, 
15  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; valued  at  over  30  cents  per  pound 
and  not  exceeding  40  cents  per  pound,  20  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  ceut  ad  valorem ; 
valued  at  over  40  cents  per  pound  and  not  exceeding  60  cents  per  pound,  30  cents  per 
pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; valued  at  over  60  cents  per  pound,  40  cents  per 
pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

The  present  rate  of  duty  on  blankets  is  so  high  as  to  make  it  prohibitory. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


23 


Women’s  and  children’s  dress  goods,  flannels,  coat  linings,  Italian  cloths,  and  goods 
of  Tike  description  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the 
alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animal  costing  not  over  30  cents  per  square  yard,  6 cents  per 
square  yard,  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  costing  over  30  cents  per  square  yard,  8 
cents  per  square  yard  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

A specific  duty  aud  a low  ad  valorem  rate  we  consider  necessary,  the  low  ad  valorem 
rate  equalizes  to  a certain  extent  the  low  and  high  priced  goods  without  being  an 
incentive  to  undervaluation. 

The  weight  clause  should  be  abolished  as  it  tends  to  keep  out  a great  many  coarse, 
warm  fabrics  suitable  for  the  poorer  classes. 

Formerly  goods  costing  from  4 pence  to  7 pence  sterling  were  imported  largely ; 
under  the  present  tariff  they  have  been  driven  from  the  market.  Consequently  the 
revenue  has  been  lost  to  the  Government. 

carpets,  &c. 

Wilton  and  Axminster  carpets,  70  cents  per  square  yard ; brussels  and  velvets,  30  cents 
per  square  yard;  tapestry  brussels,  20  cents  per  square  yard;  ingrain,  12  cents  per 
square  yard  ; druggets,  printed  or  colored,  10  cents  per  square  yard ; oil  cloth  and 
linoleum,  6 cents  per  square  yard ; carpets  woven  whole  for  rooms,  rugs  and  mats  of 
whatever  size,  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

SILKS,  &c. 

On  all  piece  silks  or  manufactures  of  which  silk  is  the  component  material  of  chief 
value,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  not  exceeding  in  weight  1 ounce  to  the  square 
yard,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

On  piece  silks  weighing  over  1 ounce  to  the  square  yard,  $1.50  per  pound  and  10 
per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

On  piece  silk  and  cotton  manufactures,  silk  chief  value,  75  cents  per  pound  and 
10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

SILKS  AND  VELVETS. 

On  all  silk  velvets,  $3.50  per  pound  and  10  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

On  silk  and  cotton  velvets,  silk  chief  value,  $1.50  per  pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad 
valorem. 

A compound  duty  we  consider  fairest  and  the  best  protection.  With  an  ad  valorem 
rate  only,  the  undervaluations  make  it  impossible  for  the  honest  importer  to  do  any 
business ; a specific  and  a low  ad  valorem  rate  equalizes  to  a certain  extent  the  low 
and  high  priced  goods  without  being  an  incentive  to  undervaluations. 

Ribbons,  ribbon  velvets,  clothing  in  whole  or  part  made  up,  trimmings,  braids, 
galloons,  gloves,  mitts,  shirts,  drawers,  hosiery,  laces,  and  all  other  manufactures  of 
silk,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  not  otherwise  pro- 
vided for,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Oaths  should  be  abolished.  The  importer  should  be  allowed  to  enter  the  goods  at 
any  price  he  chooses,  and  if  found  to  be  undervalued  the  Government  should  take 
the  goods  and  pay  the  importer  from  5 per  cent,  to  7|  percent.,  in  addition  to  invoice 
price.  This  method  would  save  a great  deal  of  trouble  and  annoyance  both  to  the 
Government  and  the  importer. 

Articles  known  as  dry  goods  should  not  pay  a higher  rate  of  duty  than  40  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

All  petty  charges  at  custom-house  for  oaths,  permits,  &c.,  should  be  abolished. 

Consular  certificates  on  invoices  should  be  done  away  with,  as  it  puts  the  importer 
to  considerable  trouble  and  delay. 

Samples  should  be  sent  to  sample  office  immediately  on  arrival ; if  dutiable  the  im- 
porter should  be  allowed  to  pay  duty  there,  without  going  through  the  long  formality 
now  in  vogue,  which  takes  from  two  to  five  days. 

Entries  should  be  passed  the  same  day  they  are  left  at  the  custom-house,  and  should 
be  liquidated  within  30  days,  which  liquidation  should  be  final  except  for  clerical 
error  or  fraud. 

GLOVES. 

On  all  leather  gloves  of  every  description  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  25  per  cent.;  the 
present  rate  is  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem— a duty  which  cannot  be  collected,  and  every 
honest  importer  owning  the  goods  has  been  driven  from  the  market ; they  are  now 
wholly  consigned  by  the  manufacturer. 


24 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[James  McCreery  & Co.,  silk  manufactures.'] 


New  York,  November  14, 1885. 


Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington : 


Sir  : We  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  circular 
dated  Washington,  October  17,  1885. 

We  have  so  far  delayed  our  answer  that  we  might  have  opportunity 
thoroughly  to  study  the  scope  and  nature  of  the  various  questions  upon 
which  you  have  invited  an  expression  of  our  views. 

We  most  heartily  approve  of  the  substitution  of  specific  for  ad  valorem 
duties  wherever  practicable. 

We  have  as  yet  given  our  chief  attention  to  silk  and  silk  goods  em- 
braced in  Schedule  L of  the  present  law,  and  we  have  no  doubt  of  the 
feasibility  of  applying  specific  duties  at  least  to  90  per  cent,  of  this  class 
of  goods. 

We  beg  leave  to  send  herewith  a schedule  embodying  the  results  of 
our  researches,  which  we  earnestly  recommeDd  as  a substitute  for  Sched- 
ule L of  the  present  law. 

In  preparing  it  we  have  gone  over  two  years  of  our  own  importations 
and  have  sought  information  from  several  of  our  fellow  importers  who 
deal  in  lines  of  goods  not  familiar  to  us,  and  we  believe  that  we  can 
coufidently  say  to  you  that  the  application  of  this  new  schedule  will 
neither  diminish  the  revenue  of  the  Government  nor  the  protection  of 
the  home  manufacturer. 

We  would  state  in  passing  that  the  objection  that  very  low-priced 
goods  would  be  prohibited  by  the  pound  rate  duty,  can  be  met  by  the 
fact  that  these  goods  are  very  heavily  charged  with  dye  and  other  ma- 
terials, and  are  practically  worthless  to  the  consumer. 

The  Government  sees  fit  to  protect  the  consumers  against  the  impor- 
tation of  spurious  or  adulterated  tea,  and  in  like  manner  the  consumer 
w<5uld  be  greatly  benefited  by  a duty  which  should  rule  out  worthless 
goods. 

One  of  the  incongruities  of  the  present  tariff  is  the  application  of  a 
different  rate  of  duty  to  goods  intended  for  mens’  hats  and  ladies’  or 
childrens’  hats  and  bonnets  from  that  levied  upon  similar  fabrics  used 
for  other  purposes. 

W e see  no  reason  why  the  duty  on  silk  plush  for  a man’s  hat  or  a 
lady’s  bonnet  should  pay  any  less  rate  of  duty  than  the  velvet  of  a 
man’s  coat  collar  or  the  plush  for  trimming  a lady’s  dress.  The  velvet 
for  the  coat  collar  and  the  plush  for  trimming  a dress  are  as  much  raw 
material  to  the  tailor,  clothier,  and  dress  maker  as  the  others  are  to  the 
hatter  and  milliner. 

In  reply  to  the  last  paragraph  of  your  circular  we  would  say  that  we 
are  unwilling  to  make  specific  charges,  but  are  well  satisfied  in  our  own 
minds  that  the  whole  range  of  German  velvets  and  plushes  is  greatly 
undervalued. 

We  deal  largely  in  these  goods,  but  cannot  profitably  import  them. 
We  place  our  orders  for  them  deliverable  by  the  manufacturers’  agents 
in  New  York  in  United  States  gold- dollar  prices. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 


JAMES  McCKEERY  & CO. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


25 


Schedule  recommended  as  a substitute  of  Schedule  L of  the  present  tariff  law. 

380.  Silk  partially  manufactured  from  cocoons  or  waste  silk  and  not  further  ad- 
vanced or  manufactured  than  carded  or  combed  silk,  50  cents  per  pound. 

381  (a).  Thrown  silk,  not  more  advanced  than  singles,  tram,  organzine,  sewing  silk, 
twist,  floss  in  the  gum,  $1  per  pound. 

(&)  The  same,  when  purifled  or  dyed,  $1.50  per  pound. 

(c)  Spun  silk  yarns  or  threads  in  the  grey,  $1  per  pound. 

( d ) The  same,  if  dyed,  $1.50  per  pound. 

(e)  Noil  yarns,  30  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

382.  On  lastings,  mohair  cloth,  silk  twist,  or  other  manufactures  of  cloth  woven  or 
made  in  patterns  of  such  size,  shape,  or  form,  or  cut  in  such  manner  as  to  be  fit  for 
buttons  exclusively,  10  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

383.  (a)  Asia  ic  silk  goods  in  the  piece,  made  wholly  of  the  wild  cocoons  of  Asia,  in- 
cluding and  similar  to  Shantung  pongee  and  cloth  made  of  the  Tussor  silk,  when  im- 
ported in  the  gray,  6 cents  per  square  yard  and  $1  per  pound;  and  when  further  ad- 
vanced by  dyeing,  staining,  printing,  or  bleaching,  12  cents  per  square  yard  and  $1 
per  pound. 

(b)  All  other  goods  in  the  piece,  except  as  hereinafter  provided  for,  composed 
wholly  of  reeled  silk,  or  containing  50  per  cencum  or  over,  by  weight,  of  reeled  silk, 
and  weighing  not  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  18  cents  per  square  yard  and 
$1.50  per  pound ; when  weighing  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  $4  per  pound, 
and  the  square-yard  duty  to  be  omitted. 

(c)  The  same,  containing  less  than  50  per  centum,  but  not  less  than  25  per  centum, 
by  weight,  of  reeled  silk,  the  remainder  being*  some  other  textile  than  silk,  and  weigh- 
ing not  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  12  cents  per  square  yard  and  $1  per  pound, 
and  when  weighing  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  $3  per  pound,  and  the  square- 
yard  duty  to  be  omitted. 

(d)  The  same,  containing  less  than  25  per  centum,  by  weight,  of  reeled  silk , but 
not  less  than  5 per  centum,  by  weight,  of  reeled  silk,  the  remainder  being  some  other 
textile  than  silk,  and  weighing  not  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  9 cents  per 
square  yard  and  75  cents  per  pound,  and  when  weighing  less  than  one  ounce  per 
square  yard,  $2  per  pound,  and  the  square-yard  duty  to  be  omitted. 

( e ) The  same,  when  composed  wholly  of  spun  silk,  or  when  containing  50 per  centum 
or  over,  by  weight,  of  spun  silk,  the  remainder  being  some  other  textile  than  silk,  and 
weighing  not  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  18  cents  per  square  yard  and  $1  per 
pound,  and  when  weighing  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  $3.50  per  pound,  and 
the  square-yard  duty  to  be  omitted. 

(f)  The  same,  containing  less  than  50  per  centum  but  not  less  than  25  per  centum,  by 
weight,  of  spun  silk,  the  remainder  being  some  other  textile  than  silk,  and  weighing 
not  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  12  cents  per  square  yard  and  75  cents  per 
pound,  and  when  weighing  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  $2.50  per  pound,  and 
the  square-yard  duty  to  be  omitted. 

(g)  The  same,  containing  less  than  25  per  centum,  by  weight,  of  spun  silk,  but  not  less 
than  5 per  centum,  by  weight,  of  spun  silk,  the  remainder  being  some  other  textile 
than  silk,  and  weighing  not  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  9 cents  per  square 
yard  and  50  cents  per  pound,  and  when  weighing  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard, 
$2  per  pound,  and  the  square-yard  duty  to  be  omitted. 

(A)  Goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  classified  under  paragraphs  383,  a,  b,  c,  d,  e,  f, 
and  g , shall  be  subject  to  the  following  rates  of  duty  in  addition  to  the  rate  or  rates 
hereinbefore  provided,  viz : 

(i)  Velvet  or  plush,  cut  or  uncut,  or  fabrics  in  which  velvet  or  plush,  cut  or  uncut, 
is  combined  with  other  tissue  or  tissues,  when  the  pile  is  composed  wholly  or  partly 
of  spun  silk,  the  remainder  being  some  other  textile  than  silk,  50  cents  per  pound, 
and  when  composed  wholly  or  partly  of  reeled  silk,  $1  per  pound. 

( j ) Embroidery,  24  cents  per  square  yard,  which  shall  be  levied  upon  the  entire  sur- 
face of  piece  upon  which  the  embroidery  is  worked. 

(A)  Nets,  laces  not  made  by  hand,  ribbons,  flat  braids,  bindings,  handkerchiefs, 
scarfs  not  made  up,  shawls,  and  all  other  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  capable  of 
square-yard  measurement  composed  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  shall  be  a component 
material,  shall  be  classified  as  goods  in  the  piece,  and  when  the  edge  is  scolloped  or 
dented  the  measurement  shall  be  made  at  the  widest  part. 

( l ) Laces,  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  silk,  and  made  by  hand,  $10  per  pound. 

(m)  Articles  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  shall  be  a component  material  of  50  per  centum 
or  over,  by  weight,  made  up  wholly  or  in  part  by  the  tailor,  seamstress,  milliner,  or 
manufactured,  $6  per  pound. 

(ft)  The  same,  if  less  than  50  per  centum,  by  weight,  of  silk,  and  not  less  than  25  per 
centum,  by  weight,  of  silk,  $5  per  pound. 

(o)  The  same,  if  less  than  25  per  centum,  by  weight,  of  silk,  but  not  less  than  5 per 
centum,  by  weight,  of  silk,  $4  per  pound,  provided,  however,  that  goods  classified  under 


2G 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


paragraphs  383  m,  n,  and  o,  when  trimmed  with  hand-made  lace,  shall  he  subject  to  a 
duty  of  $5  per  pound  in  addit  ion  to  the  rates  hereinbefore  provided,  and  provided 
farther,  that  no  article  made  up  in  whole  or  in  part  by  the  tailor,  seamstress,  milli- 
ner, or  manufacturer,  shall  be  admitted  at  a less  rate  of  duty  then  would  be  imposed 
upon  the  materials  of  which  it  is  composed,  if  imported  in  the  piece. 

( p ) Hosiery,  gloves,  undervests,  drawers,  and  all  goods  made  on  knitting-frames, 
composed  wholly  of  reeled  silk  or  of  which  reeled  silk  shall  be  a component  part  of 
50  per  centum  by  weight  or  over,  $3.50  per  pound. 

( q ) The  same  when  composed  wholly  of  spun  silk  or  of  which  spun  silk  shall  be  a 
component  part  of  50  per  centum  by  weight  or  over,  $2.50  per  pound. 

(»•)  The  same  when  composed  of  silk  and  some  other  textile  than  silk,  the  weight 
of  silk  being  less  than  50  per  centum  but  not  less  than  5 per  centum,  $2  per  pound. 

(s)  On  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  not  otherwise  provided  for  in  this  sched- 
ule, and  not  at  present  on  the  free  list,  made  of  silk  or  containing  5 per  centum  by 
weight  of  silk,  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

^ t ) Goods,  wares,  aud  merchandise  containing  less  than  5 per  centum  by  weight  of 
silk  shall  be  classified  as  they  would  be  if  they  contained  no  silk. 

(m)  Goods,  wajes,  and  merchandise  containing  both  reeled  silk  and  spun  silk  shall 
be  classified  as  if  the  entire  weight  of  silk  contained  therein  were  reeled  silk. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JAMES  McCREERY  & CO. 


[The  same.] 

[New  York,  November  25,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington: 

Sir  : Our  further  investigations  have  convinced  us  that  on  all  reeled 
silk  goods  weighing  more  than  eight  ounces  per  square  yard  the  rates 
we  have  already  proposed  will  fairly  apply,  and  no  special  provision  for 
them  need  be  made,  but  on  Turcomans  and  like  goods  used  for  uphol- 
stery purposes,  composed  in  whole  or  in  part  of  spun  silk  or  waste  silk, 
the  rates  proposed  in  our  schedule  would  bear  heavily. 

Very  few  of  these  goods  are  now  imported  as  they  are  produced  more 
cheaply  in  this  country,  and  the  present  50  per  cent,  duty  is  practically 
prohibitive. 

We  do  not  very  well  see  any  specific  provision  that  could  be  made  to 
cover  these  goods  so  as  not  to  prohibit  them  that  would  not  at  the  same 
time  open  the  door  for  evasions. 

You  will  observe  a provision  for  additional  duty  on  goods  classified 
under  paragraphs  383  M,  N,  and  O,  of  $5  per  pound,  in  order  to  guard 
against  evasion  of  duty  on  real  hand-made  laces. 

The  succeeding  clause  is  intended  to  guard  against  any  other  pos- 
sible evasion  of  duty  by  making  up  the  goods  in  whole  or  in  part. 

Paragraph  383  u provides  against  any  discussion  as  to  whether  reeled- 
silk  or  spun-silk  rates  shall  prevail,  such  as  would  arise  where  both 
were  employed  in  nearly  equal  quantities. 

In  preparing  this  schedule  we  have  consulted  freely  with  American 
importers  and  American  manufacturers  of  the  highest  character  and 
knowledge,  and  whilst  we  recommend  it  as  being  as  nearly  perfect  as 
we  think  it  can  be  made  without  an  actual  trial,  we  are  prepared  to  ac- 
cept any  scale  of  specific  duties,  whether  higher  or  lower,  as  infinitely 
preferable  to  the  vexations,  uncertainties,  delays,  and  unfair  competi- 
tion incident  to  the  ad  valorem  system. 

Very  respectfully, 

JAMES  McCREERY  & CO. 

P.  S. — Referring  to  paragraph  381  A,  we  find  that  noil  yarns  cost  in 
England  all  the  way  from  Is.  to  10s.  per  pound,  the  average  being  about 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


27 


4s.  or  $1  per  pound;  30  cents  per  pound  would  therefore  be  a fair  sub- 
stitute for  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  but  as  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  tell 
where  spun  silks  end  and  noil  yarns  begin  we  think  it  best  to  leave  this 
paragraph  at  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  otherwise  we  run  the  risk  of 
having  spun  silk  invoiced  as  noil  yarns. 


New  York,  November  30, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.  : 

Sir:  We  have  the  honor  to  hand  you  inclosed  the  translations  from 
the  German  work  by  Dr.  E.  L.  James  referred  to  in  our  letter  of  the 
25th  instant. 

Very  respectfully, 

JAMES  McCREERY  & CO. 


Extracts  from  Vol.  I,  part  3,  of  a collection  of  economical  and  statistical  treatises , edited  by 

Dr.  John  Conrad,  Halle,  Germany.  Title,  part  3,  Vol.  I:  Studien  fiber  den  Amerika- 

nischen  Zolltarif,  its  development  and  its  influence  on  the  social  system.  Dr.  E.  J.  James, 

Jena,  1877. 

Chapter  II.— Kinds  of  Duties. 

If  the  imports  are  appraised  at  a low  price,  under  the  ad  valorem  system  the  cus- 
toms are  low,  and  the  manufacturer  loses  protection  at  just  the  time  when  he  needs 
it  most;  if  imports,  however,  are  appraised  at  high  prices,  the  customs  rise,  the 
manufacturer  is  richly  protected  when  he  could  best  get  along  without  it. 

This  is  exemplified  in  the  working  of  the  tariff  of  1816  on  woolen  goods. 

Dr.  James  quotes  from  the  report  of  select  committee  on  import  duties,  together 
with  the  minutes  of  evidence,  ordered  by  House  of  Commons,  printed  August  6, 1840. 

Ad  valorem  duties  very  hard  to  execute. 

The  value  of  goods  can  hardly  be  determined  with  even  approximate  certainty,  and 
therefore  evasions  of  duty  are  very  easy. 

Declarations  of  value  are  on  personal  declaration,  and  thus  there  are  many  oppor- 
tunities for  fraud. 

Importers  are  left  to  the  arbitrary  conduct  of  bureau  officers,  the  movements  of 
commerce  are  disturbed,  and  bribery  of  officials  soon  becomes  great. 

Of  and  for  themselves  ad  valorem" duties  have  the  property  of  dangerously  exagger- 
ating variations  in  price. 

The  strictness  of  executing  an  ad  valorem  system  is  dependent  on  the  character  of 
the  officials.  There  is,  therefore,  great  danger  that  officials  of  different  entry  ports 
will  compete  in  generous  interpretations  of  laws  in  order  to  attract  trade  to  their  own 
places. 

Dr.  James  quotes  from  Arn6,  “Tarif  de  Douanes,”  Paris,  1876,  Vol.  II,  p.  538 : 

“ There  are  under  ad  valorem  systems  great  abuses,  abuses  equally  compromising 
for  the  treasury,  for  those  industries  which  need  to  profit  in  the  protection  of  the 
tariff,  and  for  thos«  commercial  houses  which  have  no  wish  to  be  fraudulent.” 

Page  535,  id.,  Arn6  says: 

“We  understood  a representative  in  high  position  in  the  Italian  Government  to  es- 
timate at  50  per  cent,  of  the  amount  of  duties  the  loss  inflicted  on  the  treasury  of  the 
Peninsula  by  false  declaration  of  value.” 

Speaking  of  the  possibility  of  preventing  too  low  valuation  by  means  of  consular 
certificates,  Arn6  farther  says : 

“ Unfortunately  this  security  is  entirely  illusory.  The  maires  or  the  consuls,  even  if 
they  should  attempt  to  verify  the  invoices  (and  they  would  find  this  exceedingly 
difficult),  are  in  no  position  to  govern  the  prices;  nor  can  they  prevent  agents  from 
misusing  their  certificates  by  a substitution  of  packages. 

“In  reality  they  limit  themselves  to  confirming  the  authenticity  of  this  or  that  sig- 
nature, without  being  able  to  correct  or  indicate  in  their  visa  the  inaccurate  declara' 
tions. 

P.  41. — The  most  important  objection  against  ad  valorem  system  is  that  this  system 
necessarily  exposes  commerce  to  the  will  of  officials.  This  is  particularly  important 


28 


EEPOET  OF  THE  SECEETAEY  OF  THE  TEEASUEY. 


lor  German  affairs.  However  little  the  German  Empire  has  to  fear  from  bribery  of  its 
officials  or  from  careless  administration,  the  damages  for  legitimate  trade  are  enor- 
mous which  would  arise  from  so  great  a concentration  of  irresponsible  power  in  the 
hands  of  officials.  The  generally  reckless  bearing  of  the  German  bureaucracy  toward 
the  public  would  only  increase  this  danger. 

To  leave  discretion  in  such  matters  to  officials  is  to  introduce  into  trade  an  entirely 
new  and  indeterminable  factor. 

The  storms  of  the  sea  are  subject  to  a calculation  of  probability,  but  the  whims  and 
caprices  of  Government  officials  defy  all  attempts  to  forecast  them.  This  uncertainty 
is  worst  of  all  for  the  small  dealer.  When  he  comes  in  conflict  with  the  bureau,  he 
has  neither  capital  nor  time  to  carry  on  a contest.  He  must  at  once  come  to  an  un- 
derstanding with  the  bureau  or  go  under. 

And  even  then  very  large  dealers  cannot  take  advantage  of  favorable  occasions,  at 
leas^not  in  full  measure,  for  the  customs  must  in  such  system  be  regulated  by  the 
actual  market  price ; and  if  a dealer  has  bought  a quantity  of  goods  at  special  ad- 
vantage he  must  still  pay  just  as  high  a tariff  as  if  he  had  bought  the  goods  at  the 
market  price,  and  he  is  thus  robbed  of  a part  of  his  profit.  Thus  the  foundations  of 
all  healthy  trade  are  perpetually  disturbed. 

P.  42. — Specific  duties  are  easily  collecfed  and  offer  few  opportunities  for  fraud. 

They  necessitate  less  technical  knowledge  in  the  officials  and  are  therefore  much 
more  cheaply  administered  and  are  more  productive. 

They  secure  to  trade  a greater  certainty  in  its  calculations,  freedom  in  its  transac- 
tions, and  do  not  exaggerate,  in  anywise,  variations  in  price. 

P.  46. — It  is  maintained  by  many  that  specific  duties  can  be  so  graded  as  to  substi- 
tute the  ad  valorem  system.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  where  this  is  the  case  specific 
duties  are  to  be  preferred  to  ad  valorem  duties. 

P.  48. — Answers  from  French  boards  of  trade  and  chambers  of  commerce  to  French 
ministry  as  to  their  preference  for  specific  or  ad  valorem  duties. 

Of  these  answered : 

For  specific  duties,  twenty-nine  boards  of  trade  and  nine  chambers  of  commerce. 

For  ad  valorem  duties,  nine  boards  of  trade  and  three  chambers  of  commerce. 

The  others  did  not  decide  absolutely ; the  majority  incline  to  specific  duties  as  best 
adapted  to  avoid  deception, evasion, disputes  over  customs  red  tape;  but  they  add 
that  ad  valorem  duties  should  be  retained  when  no  just  relation  can  be  established 
between  the  weight  or  measure  and  the  worth  of  the  goods. 


[Hardt  &Lindgens,  silks.  1 

New  York,  November  25,  1885. 

The  undersigned  having  made  a careful  examination  of  the  schedule 
relating  to  duties  on  -silks  and  silk  goods  prepared  by  Messrs.  James 
McCreery  & Co.,  of  New  York,  hereby  indorses  the  same,  and  earnestly 
recommends  it  as  a substitute  for  the  present  ad  valorem  duties. 

The  proposed  schedule  will  not  increase  the  protection  at  present 
enjoyed  by  the  home  producer,  and  if  under  its  classification  such  fab- 
rics are  excluded  which  are  excessively  adulterated  in  their  manufact- 
ure, our  commerce  will  be  benefited  thereby  and  the  importation  of 
honestly-made  goods  encouraged. 

The  proposed  schedule  will  be  beneficial  alike  to  the  American  im- 
porter and  to  the  American  manufacturer. 

OSCAR  SEEBASS. 


[ Logan  Silk  Mills,  silk  goods.'] 

Auburn,  N.  Y.,  November  30, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

Sir:  We  have  examined  with  care  the  schedule  relating  to  duties  on 
silks  and  silk  goods  prepared  by  Messrs.  James  McCreery  & Co.,  of 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


29 


New  York.  The  proposed  schedule  will  not  increase  the  protection  now 
enjoyed  by  American  manufacturers,  but  will  benefit  our  commerce 
by  excluding  fabrics  that  are  excessively  adulterated  in  their  manu- 
facture, and  encourage  the  importation  of  honestly  made  goods.  We 
believe  this  schedule  to  be  as  nearly  perfect  as  is  possible  to  be  made, 
and  most  earnestly  wish  for  its  adoption  by  Congress. 

Eespectfully, 

LOGAN  SILK  MILLS, 

Auburn , N.  Y. 


[William  F.  Read,  sillcs,  gloves,  tfc.  ] 

Philadelphia,  October  21,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington : 

Sir  : As  I have  been  much  interested  in  all  the  previous  efforts  to 
correct  the  evil  of  fraudulent  undervaluation  of  invoices,  I take  pleas- 
ure in  replying  to  your  request  of  July  17. 

That  tfye  Treasury  has  suffered  to  the  extent  of  millions  per  annum, 
that  no  degree  of  intelligent  examination  is  capable  of  preventing  it 
absolutely,  and  that  there  is  but  one  safe  and  wholesome  remedy,  I think 
has  become  apparent  to  most  of  those  who  have  familiarized  themselves 
with  the  subject. 

One  of  the  worst  features  is,  that  our  own  citizens  have  been  driven 
out  of  the  business  of  importing  foreign  merchandise  to  make  room  for 
aliens,  innocent  of  conscientious  scruples,  who,  although  of  reputable 
commercial  standing  otherwise,  look  upon  it  as  no  lack  of  honesty  to 
evade  the  law,  no  perjury  to  make  false  affidavits,  and  no  theft  to  realize 
their  own  profits  or  commissions  and  those  of  their  correspondents 
through  duties  saved  by  fraudulently  undervalued  invoices. 

In  theory,  levying  a duty  by  the  assessment  of  a percentage  of  value 
is  doubtless  the  fairest  and  most  comprehensive  of  all  modes ; but  it 
presupposes  a high  order  of  general  honesty  on  the  part  of  importers, 
or  the  employment  of  expert  knowledge  of  many  kinds  of  merchandise 
on  the  part  of  poorly-paid  examiners  for  the  detection  of  fraud,  should 
such  high-toned  morality  be  found  wanting. 

Practice  and  theory  in  this  are  very  wide  apart.  The  scrupulous  have 
been  driven  out  by  the  unscrupulous,  leaving  the  Treasury  Department 
to  battle  alone  with  the  latter,  banded  together,  in  a measure,  to  sustain 
the  only  system  by  which  they  can  exist. 

I am,  and  have  been  for  years,  strongly  in  favor  of  specific  duties 
wherever  practicable,  and  in  revising  or  remodeling  the  tariff  would  lay 
down  the  fixed  principle — 

That  everything  capable  of  being  counted,  weighed,  or  measured 
should  pay  duty  on  quantity. 

In  no  case  should  any  rate  of  duty  higher  than  16  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  be  levied,  where  the  imposition  of  an  ad  valorem  rate  should 
be  deemed  advisable  or  necessary. 

My  reason  for  naming  this  as  the  maximum  rate  is,  that  it  would 
render  it  imjiossible  to  undervalue  an  invoice  sufficiently  to  realize 
profit  enough  to  cover  the  risk  and  afford  the  margin  required  to  give 
the  importer  an  advantage  in  the  market. 

An  undervaluation  of  50  per  cent,  (which  would  be  extremely  dan- 
gerous) would  afford  but  8 per  cent.,  a fairly  liberal  commission  for  the 


30 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


importer,  but  nothing  for  the  fellow-conspirator  abroad,  and  one  of  25 
per  cent,  but  4 per  cent.,  which  would  not  yield  profit  enough  or  advan- 
tage enough  over  the  market  in  general  to  make  it  worth  while  on  the 
part  of  either  to  carr>  on  the  practice. 

The  ultimate  result  would  be  distribution  instead  of  centralization — 
the  multiplication  of  importers  all  over  the  country,  as  it  should  be,  and 
not  the  concentration  of  them  in  a few  large  Eastern  and  Western  cities. 

The  foreign  manufacturer  would  then  have  a foreign  price  in  the 
currency  of  the  place  of  production,  and  not  quote  so  many  dollars  or 
cents  per  yard  or  per  pound  delivered  in  the  United  States  by  his 
American  agent,  as  is  now  the  practice  to  some  extent. 

In  kid  gloves  and  piece  silk  goods  a specific  duty  is  imperatively 
necessary,  and  no  time  should  be  lost  in  making  the  change  on  these 
articles. 

Should  a specific  rate  pure  and  simple  be  found  impracticable,  then 
if  the  rate  be  mixed,  the  ad  valorem  portion  of  it  should  not  exceed  16 
per  cent.,  for  the  reasons  given. 

At  least  $3  per  pound  could  be  safely  levied  on  piece  silks,  and  the 
tendency  would  be  to  give  the  consumer  a very  much  more  durable 
article,  as  many  of  these  goods  now  coming  to  this  country  are  adul- 
terated by  loading  and  swelling  the  thread  from  200  to  300  per  cent. 

A line  as  to  weight  could  be  drawn  ; all  under  a certain  weight  per 
square  yard  to  be  subject  to  a square  yard  duty.  This  would  apply  to 
the  very  thin  light  fabrics  made  for  lining  and  other  purposes. 

It  is  rather  unfortunate  that  all  raw  materials  cannot  be  placed  on 
the  free  list,  and  that  it  is  deemed  necessary  to  levy  duty  on  some  of 
them.  It  seems  inexplicable  that  a country  like  this,  with  every  variety 
of  climate,  soil,  and  configuration,  freely  watered,  and  abounding  with 
the  cheapest  food,  should  require  a duty  on  animal  products,  but  it 
has  been  considered  essential,  particularly  on  wool. 

I cannot  see,  however,  why  it  should  be  applied  to  the  hair  of  the 
alpaca,  llama,  vicuna,  and  Cashmere  goat,  or  like  animals,  which  are 
needed  by  our  manufacturers,  and  are  not  grown  in  this  country ; be- 
sides, camel’s  hair  is  admitted  free,  and  the  three  Peruvian  animals  are 
closely  allied  to  it  and  belong  to  the  same  family. 

It  might  be  urged  that  they  would  compete  with  our  home-grown 
wools  and  lessen  their  consumption,  but  they  produce  entirely  different 
results  iu  a fabric,  and  would  not  do  so  more  then  than  now. 

It  is  even  questionable  whether  the  admission  of  free  wool  would  not 
equalize  the  markets  and  give  our  farmer  as  good  a price  as  he  now 
gets. 

At  present  the  duty  on  fine  wools  of  10  and  12  cents  per  pound  is  a 
serious  obstacle  to  growth  in  woolen  goods  and  their  exportation 
abroad,  more  particularly  on  the  fiue  merino,  Saxony,  and  Botany 
wools,  which  often  lose  60  per  cent,  of  their  weight  in  scouring. 

To  illustrate : 

Botany  wool,  costing  in  London  14^.=28  cents  per  pound ; shrinkage 
in  scouring,  60  per  cent,  making  it  cost  70  cents  per  pound. 

Botany  wool,  costing  28  cents  landed  iu  Philadelphia,  10  cents  duty 
and  exchange=40  cents  per  pound ; shrinkage  in  scouring,  60  percent., 
cent.,  making  it  cost  $1  per  pound. 

This,  I think,  will  show  that  the  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound  has 
increased  to  30  cents,  or,  rather,  that  the  manufacturer  has  j)aid  20 
cents  per  pound  duty  on  grease,  dirt,  dung,  sand,  burrs,  &c.,  which 
have  disappeared  in  the  soap  and  water. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


31 


Starting  with  his  clean,  scoured  wool  at  42  per  cent,  higher  than  the 
foreigner,  and  adding  to  it  his  labor  at  double  the  rate,  by  the  time  the 
domes!  ic  spinner  gets  it  into  yarn  ready  for  the  weaver  it  is  handi- 
capped to  the  tune  of  60  per  cent,  at  least. 

To  illustrate  this : 

64’s,  single  worsted  yarn,  made  of  the  lower  sort  of  fine  Botany  wool, 
is  sold  to  close  buyers  in  England  at  3s.  4<L,  less  2J  per  cent.,  equal  to 
79  cents  net. 

64’s  or  60’s,  single  worsted  yarn,  made  of  corresponding  Botany  or 
domestic  wool,  cannot  be  afforded  or  bought  at  less  than  $1.35  net. 

The  foreign  64’s  at  3s.  £d.  would  cost,  at  24  cents  per  pound  and  35  per 
cent,  duty,  with  expenses  added,  just  about  $1.30  per  pound,  and  would 
as  a rule  have  more  labor  upon  it  and  be  more  accurately  and  regularly 
spun. 

This  would  seem  to  explain  why  the  duty  on  the  greasy,  dirty  wool 
had  made  the  excessive  rate  on  the  yarn  necessary. 

Yarn  in  itself  being  worthless  until  converted  into  a fabric,  it  is  to 
the  weaver  or  knitter  essentially  a raw  material,  and  its  cost  determines 
in  a great  measure  the  cost  of  the*  cloth. 

Having  levied  this  duty  on  the  wool,  and  a higher  one  on  the  yarn,  so 
that  the  spinner  may  be  able  to  consume  it,  it  is  necessary  to  go  still 
further,  so  that  the  weaver,  the  dyer,  and  the  finisher,  whose  wages 
and  outlays  are  double  at  least  those  abroad,  shall  consume  the  yarn 
and  be  employed,  and  the  result  is  a high  rate  on  the  completed  article, 
which  promises  to  the  manufacturer  an  advantage  of  from  60  to  80  per 
cent.,  and  really  gives  him  little  more  actually  than  10  per  cent. 

I am  quite  within  bounds  when  I state  that  if  I would  take  the  simple 
cotton  and  woolen  or  worsted  yarns  of  which  some  of  my  goods  are 
composed,  truck  them  through  my  mill,  and  bring  them  out  of  the  back 
door  finished,  without  one  cent  of  expense,  I could  not  do  more  than 
put  them  on  the  market  at  the  foreign  maker’s  home  price,  which  would 
not  yield  me  profit,  interest,  expenses  or  return  of  any  kind. 

The  simple  cost  of  the  yarns  alone  equals  or  exceeds  the  home  price 
of  the  foreign  article  completed  and  ready  for  the  market. 

To  illustrate  this,  I will  suppose  a fabric  made  on  a 2-80  cotton  warp, 
woven  with  28’s  single  filling. 


ENGLISH  COST. 


2-80  cotton  warp,  at  2s.  1 d.,  say,  10  pounds,  50  cents $5  00 

1-28  worsted  yarn,  at  Is.  8 d.,  say,  10  pounds,  40  cents 4 00 

Weaving 2 00 

Dyeing  and  finishing 1 50 

Interest,  expenses,  beaming,  &c 1 00 


For  100  yards  net 13  50 

Cost,  131  cents  per  yard. 


DOMESTIC  COST. 


Same  2-80  cotton  warp,  50  cents,  20  cents  duty  added,  10  pounds,  70  cents $7  00 

Same  1-28  worsted  yarn,  40  cents,  12  cents  per  pound,  and  35  per  cent,  added, 

10  pounds,  66  cents 6 60 

Weaving 3 00 

Dyeing  and  finishing 2 00 

Interest,  expenses,  beaming,  &c 1 50 


For  100  yards  net 20  10 


Cost,  20^  cents  per  yard.  Cost  of  material  alone,  13,fi0-  cents,  ory-Q-  higher  than  the 
English  article  completed. 


32 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


I know  of  no  undervaluation  of  consequence  in  worsted  goods  of  this 
class,  and  any  change  of  tariff  on  them,  I think,  should  first  commence 
on  wool.  It  is  well  nigh  impossible  to  make  them  in  light  weights  un- 
der the  present  tariff,  and  since  the  4 ounce  decision  on  women’s  and 
children’s  dress  goods,  &c.,  the  domestic  maker  has  in  a measure  been 
debarred  from  the  heavier  ones. 

Now  that  the  cotton  interest  is  able  to  export  its  products,  and,  if  it 
suffers  at  all,  suffers  from  an  excess  of  its  own  home  spindles,  I would 
recommend  a lower  specific  rate  on  cotton  goods,  especially  on  fine  cot- 
ton yarns.  The  latter  are  absolutely  necessary  for  the  development  of 
new  industries  and  the  production  of  higher  grades  of  fabrics  than  here- 
tofore made,  and  if  cheapened  will  enable  the  domestic  mill  to  utilize  the 
skilled  labor  now  seeking  the  United  States. 

Market  value. — This  term,  as  defined  to  mean  the  wholesale  price  or 
value  at  which  an  article  of  merchandise  is  freely  offered  in  the  place  of 
sale  or  production,  is  a fruitful  source  of  trouble,  and  often  works  much 
injustice  to  those  who  do  not  seek  in  any  way  to  defraud  the  Treasury 
of  its  proper  dues. 

In  my  judgment,  except  perhaps  in  crude  raw  materials  of  distinctly 
defined  qualities,  or  special  manufactures  of  well-established  reputations, 
no  such  thing  as  positive  market  value  at  any  one  specified  time  exists. 
Price  is  governed  by  caprice,  supply  and  demand,  the  relative  ability 
of  the  buyer  and  seller  to  bargain  at  the  time,  the  need  of  the  latter  for 
money,  the  lack  of  the  former  of  credit*,  the  character  and  condition  of 
the  merchandise,  and  many  other  things  too  complicated  and  numerous 
to  mention.  In  a period  of  fraudulent  invoices,  made  purposely  to  swindle 
the  Treasury,  the  largest  latitude  should  be  given  to  those  that  express 
an  honest  contract,  and  every  inducement  should  be  held  out  to  en- 
large the  number  of  importers  who  enter  their  goods  at  the  prices  actu- 
ally paid. 

Unquestionably,  where  the  fact  can  be  deary  established,  and  in  a 
majority  of  cases  it  can,  the  market  price  (if  such  a term  is  necessary) 
has  been  positively  fixed  for  tfyat  particular  transaction  at  that  speci- 
fied time,  and  the  importer  should  not  be  compelled  to  pay  duty  on 
some  higher  figure  because  the  seller  has  some  other  asking  price  at 
which  he  freely  offers  but  rarely  sells. 

The  price  actually  paid  or  contracted  for  should  be  the  price  or  value 
on  which  duty  should  be  levied,  and  I do  not  believe  in  making  the  law 
anything  else  was  intended. 

Besides,  it  savors  strongly  of  injustice  to  compel  an  honest  merchant 
to  pay  on  a constructive  price  higher  than  that  at  which  the  original 
contract  was  made  because  of  an  advance  between  the  time  his  con- 
tract was  made  and  the  shipment  of  his  goods,  when  in  case  of  an 
equivalent  decline  he  is  debarred  from  its  benefits. 

To  do  this  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  his  unscrupulous  neigli  bor  is  readily 
slipping  invoices  through  the  meshes  of  the  law  at  from  20  per  cent,  to 
33£  per  cent,  below  actual  cost  of  production  still  further  increases  the 
injustice  and  helps  to  drive  out  of  the  business  the  only  friend  and  ally 
the  Treasury  has. 

As  we  will  not  be  prepared  for  free  trade  until  the  competition  among 
ourselves  has  reduced  the  price  of  labor  to  a level  with  that  of  other 
countries,  and  as  we  do  not  desire  absolute  protection  for  protection’s 
sake,  as  it  overprotects  at  every  stage  and  defeats  its  object,  I believe 
that  what  we  want  is  an  intelligent  tariff  levied  for  the  general  interest, 
a tariff  which  will  yield  the  worker  a fair  wage,  will  not  hamper  the 


ENVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  33 

manufacturer  with  duties  upon  crude  materials,  will  shut  the  door 
tightly  against  fraud,  and  will  yield  a fair  revenue. 

Such  a tariff  cannot,  in  my  opinion,  be  positively  constructed  at  one 
session  of  Congress.  It  should  be  made  and  unmade,  piecemeal,  until 
the  duties  affecting  each  great  interest  are  so  adjusted  as  to  bear  equit- 
ably on  each  of  its  several  parts,  and  so  apportioned  that,  while  not 
burdening  the  consumer,  they  do  not  promise  a rate  on  the  completed 
article  which  upon  application  would  be  found  heavily  discounted  by 
rates  fixed  upon  its  component  materials  in  their  different  stages. 

I do  not  consider  it  necessary  to  enlarge  upon  the  subject  of  under- 
valution — the  fact  that  it  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  system  of  many  do- 
ing business  with  the  continent  of  Europe  (particularly ) has  so  often  been 
demonstrated  that  it  remains  only  now  to  devise  some  efficient  remedy. 

Expert  knowledge  cannot  be  relied  upon,  values  are  forever  fluctuat- 
ing, qualities  incessantly  changing  or  being  depreciated  by  cheapening 
processes  calculated  to  deeeive,  and  in  some  classes  of  goods  underval- 
uation is  so  much  the  rule  that  exceptions  are  rare  and  no  guides  what- 
ever are  left. 

Give  us  as  manufacturers  and  importers  (and  I speak  for  both,  as  I 
am  both  manufacturer  and  merchant)  specific  rates  wherever  possible 
and  mixed  rates  where  necessary,  the  ad  valorem  portion  not  exceeding 
16  per  cent.,  and  withdraw  this  long-continued  invitation  to  fraud  both 
at  home  and  abroad. 

Let  us  do  away  with  40  and  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  rates  and  experts 
at  the  same  time,  so  that  any  man  who  can  honestly  count,  weigh,  and 
measure  will  be  competent  to  pass  upon  an  invoice. 

I am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

WM.  F.  READ. 


• [Dell  and  Joseph  C.  Noblit  & Co.,  dry  goods .] 

Philadelphia,  July  31,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  .Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington : 

Dear  Sir:  Referring  to  your  favor  of  the  24th  July,  we  beg  to  submit 
the  following  reply : First,  we  are  in  favor  of  an  ad  valorem  tariff  so  far  as 
relates  to  the  class  of  goods  in  which  we  are  most  closely  interested, 
feeling  sure  under  this  system  the  best  interests  of  both  merchant  and 
Government  would  be  best  served  under  an  efficient,  experienced,  and 
honest  administration.  A high  protective  tariff  is  always  an  incentive 
to  dishonest  parties  to  defraud  the  revenue,  and  the  greatest  obstacle 
and  difficulty,  it  seems  to  us,  that  the  Government  has  to  encounter  is 
in  establishing  the  foreign  market  value.  A very  large  proportion  of 
the  goods  which  come  into  this  market  for  sale  are  consigned  to  com- 
mission houses,  who  in  many  cases  can  sell  them  for  less  than  the 
honest  importer  can  land  them  for,  and  the  question  arises,  How  do 
they  do  it?  Simply  by  cheating  the  revenue ; and  what  they  gain  in  this 
way  is  their  profit  or  commission.  A few  years  back  it  was  quite  a rare 
thing  for  a representative  of  a foreign  house  to  solicit  orders  in  any  other 
currency  but  that  of  the  country  where  the  goods  were  manufactured, 
but  how  has  it  been  of  late?  Orders  are  booked  in  dollars  and  cents, 
duty  paid,  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  account  for  this  change ; in  fact  recent 
developments  at  the  New  York  custom-house  have  proved  it.  We  do 
not  think  under  the  present  laws  that  either  specific  or  ad  valorem  duties 
S.  Ex.  72 3 


34 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY; 


will  prevent  a house  that  is  dishouestly  purposed  from  cheating  the  (jOV'1 
eminent,  and  the  most  effectual  way  of  stopping  it,  in  our  opinion,  is  to 
mete  out  summary  punishment  in  the  way  of  both  fine  and  imprison- 
ment to  any  parties  who  are  convicted  of  deliberate  attempt  to  defraud, 
owing  to  undervaluation.  We  do  not  recommend  (as  best  adapted  to 
our  class  of  goods)  a specific  tariff,  for  the  reason  that  it  taxes  the  heav- 
iest, the  cheapest,  and  lowest  grades  of  goods,  amounting  at  present  to 
almost  prohibition. 


As  an  illustration,  take  apiece  of  mohair  plush  costing  150  francs $30  00 

Dnty  40  per  cent,  act  valorem $12  00 

Duty  weight  28  pounds,  at  35  cents  per  pound 9 80 

21  80 

or  about  71  per  cent. 

Now.  take  a piece  of  the  same  class  of  goods  costing  350  francs $70  00 

Duty  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem $28  0 

Duty  weight  2G  pounds,  at  35  cents  per  pound 9 10 


37  10 

equal  53  per  cent.,  or  a difference  of  18  per  cent,  in  favor  of  the  high  cost  goods. 

If  you  grade  the  weight  duty  according  to  the  cost,  then  undervalua- 
tion would  be  resorted  to  in  order  to  bring  the  goods  in  at  the  lowest 
possible  rate.  The  customs  can  be  defrauded  under  the  specific  rates 
(although  perhaps  not  as  easily  or  to  such  an  extent  as  under  the  ad 
valorem)  unless  every  piece  of  goods  were  measured  or  weighed  accord- 
ing to  the  duty  assessed  either  square  yard  or  weight. 

To  show  how  easy  it  has  been  of  late  to  flagrantly  abuse  the  custom 
laws,  we  quote  an  instance  that  came  under  our  own  personal  observa- 
tion. A commission  house  was  importing  a French  silk  plush  at  9 
francs  per  meter,  with  15  per  cent,  discount,  and  paying  duty  on  that 
valuation,  whilst  every  other  honest  importer  dealing  in  these  goods  was 
flaying  for  the  identical  same  quality  and  made  by  the  same  manufact- 
urer 12.50  francs  less  3 and  2 per  cent.,  and  some  of  the  goods  were  ac- 
tually passed  through  the  custom-house  and  delivered  to  their  custom- 
ers before  the  fraud  was  discovered,  and  then  owing  only 'to  informa- 
tion furnished  by  a New  York  importer  who  had  paid  12.50  francs  for 
the  goods,  and  to  whom  the  goods  in  question  had  been  offered  at  less 
than  the  actual  cost  of  importation. 

As  dealers  in  upholstery  goods  and  large  importers  of  both  silk  and 
mohair  plushes,  we  have  felt  of  late  the  serious  consequence's  of  unfair 
competition  on  the  part  of  certain  New  York  importers  of  this  class  of 
goods,  and  whilst  we  know  authoritatively  that  we  own  the  goods  as 
low  as  they  have  been  sold  by  the  maker  on  the  other  side,  still  we  have 
been  powerless  to  meet  competition,  and  consequently  have  been  com- 
pelled to  either  submit  to  a serious  loss  on  what  we  have  sold,  or  by 
not  meeting  the  market  against  this  unfair  dealing  we  have  been  de- 
prived of  the  orders  usually  received  from  many  of  our  largest  and  best 
customers.  We  also  know  that  silk  and  wool  fabrics  classified  here  in 
Philadelphia  under  40  per  cent,  and  35  cents  per  pound  have  been  passed 
in  New  York  under  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  making  a difference  in  favor 
of  the  latter  of  nearly  5 per  cent.  We  are#trongIy  in  favor  of  an  ad 
valorem  tariff  which  will  afford  a fair  protection  to  home  manufacturers 
and  at  the  same  time  admit  of  fair  competition  from  foreign  markets; 
but  being  engaged  solely  in  the  upholstery  business,  we  are  only  able 
to  speak  as  referring  to  that  particular  branch,  say,  principally,  silk 
and  mohair  plushes,  and  upon  which  articles  we  have  of  late  felt  the 
demoralizing  effects  of  such  unfair  competition. 

The  present  duty  on  silk  plushes  is  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  tak- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


35 


in g an  article  24  inches  wide  and  costing  4 s.  per  yard,  you  wrould  have  to 
exact  a square-yard  duty  of  75  cents  per  square  yard,  which  would  be 
equivalent  to  the  ad  valorem  rate.  On  mohair  plushes,  which  now  pay 
40  per  cent,  ad  valorem  and  35  cents  per  pound,  taking  a medium  quality, 
costing  250  francs  and  weighing  28  pounds  to  the  piece,  the  duty  would 
be  as  follows : 


250  francs $50  00 

40  per  cent,  ad  valorem  $20  00 

28  pounds,  at  35  cents  per  pound 9 80 


29  80 

•To  equalize  this  you  would  on  this  grade  of  goods  require  to  charge 
a weight  duty  of  $1.05  per  pound.  These  are  merely  examples,  which 
can  be  multiplied. 

To  prove  to  you  how  easy  it  is  to  defraud  the  Government  even  whilst 
invoicing  the  goods  at  the  actual  market  value,  we  give  you  the  fol- 
lowing instance : 

A house  dishonestly  disposed  buys  1,000  pieces  of  silk  plushes  in  Eng- 
land and  pays  for  them  4s.  per  yard.  The  pieces  actually  contain  40 
yards,  but  the  house  invoices  them  as  35  yards  only.  The  goods  are  sel- 
dom, if  ever,  measured,  and  it  would  be  difficult  with  the  naked  eye  to 
detect  such  a difference ; but  see  the  result : 

One  thousand  pieces  of  plush,  equal  to  40,000  yards,  at  4s.,  equal  to 
£8,000 ; at  $4.86  equal  to  $38,880;  at  50  per  cent,  equal  to  $19,440  duty. 

One  thousand  pieces  of  plush,  equal  to  35,000  yards,  at  4s.,  equal  to 
£7,000;  equal  to  $34,020;  at  50  per  cent,  equal  to  $17,010;  showing  a 
difference  in  favor  of  the  importer  of  $2,430,  or  over  6 per  cent,  on  the 
sterling  cost,  a profit  far  in  excess  of  what  many  honest  importers  real- 
ize out  of  a legitimate  transaction. 

Great  facilities  for  underinvoicing  are  afforded  to  houses  who  have 
branches  in  Europe,  and  in  some  cases  merely  offices,  with  a clerk  in 
charge,  who  invoice  the  goods  themselves  to  their  firms  here.  The 
transactions  of  many  of  these  will  bear  watching.  Honest  merchants  can 
facilitate  to  a great  extent  the  efforts  of  the  Government  in  detecting- 
fraud,  and  if  appraisers  from  time  to  time  would  seek  information  from 
them  in  regard  to  foreign  market  values  of  fabrics  they  are  familiar 
with,  it  would  assist  materially  in  uprooting  the  present  system  of  un- 
dervaluation so  extensively  carried  on  of  late  years,  and  so  soon  as  dis- 
honest importers  realize  the  fact  that  the  eyes  of  the  Government  and 
honest  merchants  are  upon  them,  and  if  detected  they  will  besummarily 
dealt  with,  so  soon  will  they  discontinne  their  fraudulent  practices. 
Any  other  information  in  our  power  to  give  is  gladly  at  your  disposal. 

Very  respectfully, 

DELL  AND  J.  C.  NOBLIT  & GO. 


[The  same.] 

Philadelphia,  October  8,  1885. 

Hon.  D.  Manning., 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir:  Acknowledging  the  receipt  of  your  favor  of  the  26th  ultimo, 
asking  for  further  information  in  regard  to  customs  duties,  &c.,  we 
beg  to  say  that,  although  we  are  large  importers  of  many  classes  of 
upholstery  fabrics,  we  will  confine  ourselves  principally  to  two  articles, 


3G 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


ill  which  we  deal  most  extensively— mohair  plushes  and  silk  plushes, 
suitable  for  upholstering  purposes.  The  former  goods,  under  the  present 
tariff,  are  classified  as  manufactures  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  and 
duty  assessed  as  follows:  Costing  under  80  cents  per  pound,  35  cents 
per  pound  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem;  costing  over  80  cents  per 
pound.  35  ceuts  per  pound  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Thereby,  as 
shown  in  our  letter  of  31st  July,  imposing  the  heaviest  percentage  of 
duty  on  the  lowest  grades  of  goods,  and  to  avoid  this  we  would  suggest 
a schedule  as  follows: 

Costing  under  80  cents  per  pound,  25  cents  per  pound  and  30  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

Costing  over  80  ceuts  and  under  $1.50  per  pound,  30  cents  per  pound, 
and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Costing  over  $1.50  per  pound,  35  cents  per  pound  and  40  per  cent,  ad 
valorem. 

Or  they  could  be  rated  according  to  count.  Plushes  are  frequently 
bought  and  valued  according  to  the  pile,  or  count,  ranging  from  050  up 
to  1,000  pile,  and  the  duty  could  be  assessed  about  as  follows  : Under 
700  pile,  50  cents  per  pound  ; over  700,  under  800,  75  cents  per  pound ; 
over  800  and  under  900,  $1  per  pound ; over  900,  $1.50. 

The  previous  schedule,  according  to  cost  per  pound,  we  recommend 
as  the  most  feasible.  In  regard  to  the  article  of  silk  plushes  and  vel- 
vets, it  is  more  difficult  to  adjust  the  specific  rates,  for  the  reason  that 
these  goods  vary  in  width,  running  from  18  inches  to  54  inches,  and  in 
an  extensive  range  of  qualities,  but  the  usual  widths  for  our  purposes 
are  24  inches  and  54  inches. 

If  a change  is  made  in  this  class  of  goods  we  would  suggest  the  ad 
valorem  and  specific  combined,  say  square  yard  and  ad  valorem. 

There  are  numerous  other  articles  composed  of  silk  and  silk  and  cot- 
ton which  now  pay  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ranging  in  cost  from  $3  to 
$12  per  yard,  but  the  importation  is  comparatively  light,  and  the  ad 
valorem  duty  might  safely  be  continued.  We  think  a tariff  should  be 
made  as  simple  as  possible,  and  for  that  reason,  amongst  others,  we  ad 
vocate  the  ad  valorem  principle,  and  if  the  only  reason  for  making  a 
change  is  for  the  purpose  of  putting  a stop  to  the  present  irregularities 
in  the  way  of  undervaluation,  &c.,  we  feel  it  will  prove  a fruitless  task. 
Even  with  a specific  tariff  you  would  have  to  come  back  to  value,  cost 
per  pound  or  cost  per  square  yard,  and  the  same  means  now  employed 
to  defraud  the  Government,  under  an  ad  valorem  tariff,  could  be  used 
under'  the  specific  rates,  and  we  still  maintain,  according  to  our  judg- 
ment, that  the  ad  valorem  system  is  the  only  just  and  feasible  plan  of 
collecting  customs. 

Again,  a specific  tariff  will  lead  to  no  end  of  intricacies,  and  increase 
to  a great  extent  the  work  of  the  appraisers’  stores,  as  goods  will  have 
to  be  weighed  and  measured,  to  say  nothing  of  the  delay  to  the  importer 
in  getting  his  goods.  In  fact  we  cannot  see  how  the  specific  rates  can  be 
applied  generally  to  our  line  of  goods,  the  obstacles  to  which  would  take 
too  much  time  to  enumerate  through  correspondence,  but  could  easily 
be  proven  in  a personal  interview.  Specific  rates,  as  now  exacted  on 
some  goods,  amount  to  almost  prohibition ; for  instance,  low  cottons,  low 
woolens,  hair  cloth,  or  hair  seating,  which  latter  pays  a square-yard 
duty  of  30  cents,  thereby  shutting  out  imported  goods,  and  throwing  the 
entire  monopoly  of  the  trade  in  this  fabric  into  the  hands  of  oue  large 
corporation  in  this  country,  who  have  succeeded  in  retiring  from  the 
business  most  of  the  manufacturers  for  many  years  engaged  in  the  pro- 
duction of  this  article. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


37 


The  present  ad  valorem  rates,  generally  speaking,  in  our  opinion,  are 
not  excessive,  but  sufficiently  so  to  admit  of  great  advantages  to  any 
merchants  dishonestly  disposed.  With  the  aid  of  reliable  and  experi- 
enced men  in  the  custom-house,  who  might  from  time  to  time  gain  much 
valuable  information  in  regard  to  values,  &c.,  from  honest  importers, 
, and  the  summary  punishment  of  all  parties  convicted  of  fraud  or  under- 
valuation, we  feel  sure  the  ad  valorem  system  can  be  safely  maintained; 
but  for  any  one  engaged  in  active  business  like  ourselves  to  undertake 
to  frame  a tariff  based  upon  specific  rates,  harmonizing  with  the  present 
ad  valorem,  embracing  only  the  various  fabrics  we  are  importing,  would 
take  more  time  than  we  could  possibly  devote  to  it;  but  we  should  be 
glad  to  give  you  our  views  in  a more  extended  form  verbally,  and  to  aid 
the  Government  in  any  way  in  furthering  their  views. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

DELL.  AND  J.  0.  NOBLET  & CO. 


[Iselin,  Neeser  & Co.,  silks. ] 

New  York,  September  15,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary , Treasury  Department , Washington , D.  C. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular  of  August  1,  kindly  addressed  to  us,  has 
had  our  best  attention. 

In  our  reply  we  endeavor  to  be  as  concise  as  possible,  and  confine  our 
remarks  to  silk  goods  alone. 

While  silk  goods  are  not  by  far  the  largest  portion  of  our  business, 
we  are  interested  both  in  their  importation  and  their  manufacture  here. 
This  is  not  the  case  with  the  other  branches  of  our  business,  they  being 
either  entirely  foreign  or  entirely  domestic. 

Silk  goods,  as  understood  by  the  trade  and  treated  of  by  the  tariff, 
are  composed — 

(1)  Entirely  of  silk,  or  chappe,  which  latter  is  simply  spun  silk. 

(2)  Silk  or  chappe,  mixed  with  cotton,  wool,  or  other  material,  and  in 
many  cases  with  more  than  one  other  material. 

We  should  rule  as  follows:  All  manufactures  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk 
is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  shall  pay  a duty  of  $1.50  per 
net  pound. 

We  would  so  rule  on  all  manufactured  articles,  such  as  wool,  cotton, 
ramie,  flax,  hemp,  &c.,  substituting  for  the  word  “silk”  the  name  of  the 
article  sought  to  be  described,  and  for  the  price  per  pound  such  figures 
as  are  deemed  just. 

In  case  of  doubt  as  to  the  classification  of  an  article  containing  more 
than  one  material,  we  would  rule  that — 

In  a piece  of  a given  size  (the  size  suited  to  the  case)  the  materials 
composing  it  should  be  separated,  each  one  weighed,  and  such  weight 
multiplied  by  the  cost  of  such  raw  material.  The  most  valuable  prod- 
uct should  then  establish  chief  value,  and  the  article  be  dutiable  at  the 
rate  per  pound  established  for  manufactures  of  such  material. 

We  favor  pound  duties  instead  of  by  measure,  as  the  former  are  more 
easily  and  accurately  ascertainable.  The  latter  system  would  be  open 
to  errors  (?)  .not  easy  to  trace. 

In  our  opinion  the  proper  way  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  duty  to  be 
levied  under  the  system  we  advocate  would  be— 


38 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


To  take  the  value  of  the  raw  material  (iu  commercial  form,  of  course) 
and  compare  with  the  cost  of  manufacture,  establishing  therefrom  a 
proportion  between  labor  and  material. 

Raw  silk  varies  in  value  from  $2.50  to  $4.50  per  pound,  and  as  it  pays 
no  duty  the  cost  is  the  same  in  Europe  and  the  United  States. 

The  proportion  between  cost  of  manufacture  and  cost  of  material  in 
the  United  States  is,  for  silk  goods : 

Per  cent. 


Material <0 

Labor,  rent,  &c 40 

Total 100 


The  same  proportion  holds  good  in  Europe.  This  apparently  strange 
statement  we  explain  as  follows  : 

The  European  utilizes  the  low  grades  of  silk,  requiring  much  manipu- 
lation. The  American  uses  only  the  best  grades,  requiring  little  or  no 
manipulation.  Manipulation  naturally  represents  time  and  wages. 

Under  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  50  per  cent,  the  average  duty  on  silk 
goods  is  $1.50  per  pound. 

This  arises  from  the  fact  that  mixed  goods — i.  e silk  and  cotton,  silk 
and  wool,  &c. — are  largely  imported,  and  weigh  heavy  in  comparison 
with  their  cost.  The  importation  of  all  silk  goods  is  practically  con- 
lined  to  the  low  grades.  These  being  coarse  and  much  “charged”  are 
naturally  of  great  weight  compared  to  their  value.  Fine  all  silk  goods 
are  light  in  weight,  but  of  high  cost,  and  such  goods  are  only  imported 
in  sample  lots,  as  they  can  be  manufactured  here  to  better  advantage 
than  they  can  be  imported,  even  without  any  duty  at  all. 

The  statistics  in  the  hands  of  the  Government  should  show  the  cor- 
rectness of  our  statements. 

In  our  opinion  $1.50  per  pound  is  as  much  as  “manufactures  of  silk, 
or  of  which  silk  is  component  material  of  chief  value,”  should  be  charged 
with.  It  is  the  equivalent  of  the  present  ad  valorem  rate  of  50  per  cent., 
and  is  ample  protection  to  our  domestic  industry.  Any  higher  rate 
would  be  prohibitory  on  the  bulk  of  the  importation,  and  would  result 
in  a very  serious  curtailment  of  our  revenue. 

Personally  we  would  favor  even  a lower  rate  of  duty.  Iu  changiug 
a tariff  we  think  it  proper  to  consider  the  general  course  of  trade.  So 
looking  at  it  what  do  we  find  ? We  discover  that  the  general  tendency 
has  been,  and  is,  to  improved  methods  of  production,  which  means 
cheaper  goods. 

Therefore,  in  forming  a specific  on  an  ad  valorem  basis  of  50  per  cent, 
on  to-day’s  values,  we  will  find  in  time  that  our  specific  rate  represents 
an  ad  valorem  one  of  60  or  even  higher  percentage. 

We  deem  this  element  an  important  factor  in  the  problem  to  be 
solved,  and  so  worthy  of  consideration. 

It  should  be  easily  proven  that  by  making  duties  specific  the  cost  of 
collection  could  be  reduced  to  a very  great  extent. 

Before  closing  we  desire  to  warn  the  Government  against  two  things : 

(1)  In  considering  statements  from  manufacturers,  the  value  given 
their  “plant”  should  be  carefully  scrutinized.  Where  wages  are  esti- 
mated at  so  much  a day  or  week,  it  is  pertinent  to  ascertain  for  how 
many  days  or  weeks  in  a year  they  are  so  paid,  and  also  if  they  are 
maximum  or  average. 

(2)  All  propositions  looking  to  a sliding  scale  of  duties  on  any  one 
article  should  be  looked  upon  with  suspicion.  Such  methods  always 
have  and  always  will  be  subject  to  fraud,  and  with  the  best  of  inten- 
tions complications  cannot  be  avoided. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


39 


We  could  write  to  much  greater  length,  but  the  foregoing  expresses 
our  views  in  the  rough.  If  the  Department  finds  anything  in  them 
worthy  of  attention  and  desires  more  explicit  information  on  any  of  the 
points  advanced,  we  are  entirely  at  its  service. 

Very  respectfully, 

ISELIN,  NEESER  & CO. 


[Alexander  Black,  silks.  ] 

Toledo,  Ohio,  July  30,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury , W ashinglon , 1).  G. : 

Dear  Sir:  Being  in  favor  of  a tariff  for  protection  only,  I am  indif- 
ferent whence  the  Government  collects  its  revenue,  excepting  to  avoid 
the  corrupting  influence  and  the  favoring  of  cheats  against  honest  im- 
porters by  allowing  undervaluation. 

The  successful  competition  against  foreign  goods  imported  at  under- 
valued prices  clearly  demonstrates  the  fact  that  the  tariff  on  under- 
valued goods  ought  to  be  proportionately  reduced.  Specific  duties 
would  endanger  home  industry,  as  the  profits  of  the  manufacturer  lie 
mainly  in  the  finer  fabrics. 

We  imported  silk  plushes  and  silks,  but  unsuccessfully,  not  being 
able  to  compete  with  those  who  probably  paid  one-third  less  duty  than 
we.  The  same  was  the  case  with  Berlin  zephyrs  some  twelve  years  ago. 
The  only  article  we  imported  to  advantage  was  willow  baskets,  in  1872. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

ALEXANDER  BLACK. 


[The  same.] 

Toledo.  Ohio,  August  5,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  inquiry  about  manufacturers’  opinions  on 
specific  duty,  I don’t  think  my  answer  on  1st  instant  explicit  enough 
on  this  important  question.  “ Specific  duty”  would  more  than  protect 
the  coarser  fabrics  of  each  respective  material,  which  are  mostly  sold 
with  a very  small  margin,  while  the  finer  fabrics,  on  which  good  profits 
are  made,  would  be  freely  imported,  thus  ruin  home  manufacturers, 
which  do  pay  and  wish  to  pay  more  for  labor  than  they  . do  in  Europe. 

At  first  sight  it  would  seem  that,  individually,  I would  be  benefited 
by  buying  the  fabrics  I made  the  most  profit  on,  at  a low  price,  but 
the  ruin  of  one  or  more  home  industries  invariably  reacts  on  the  rest. 
1 would  have  no  customers  for  my  cloaks,  even  at  a reduced  price. 
(Factory  girls  don’t  wear  silk  and  plush  cloaks  in  England  as  they  do 
here),  and  I have  no  inclination  to  trade  them  (my  cloaks)  off  in  the 
Congo  Yalley  for  bamboo  matting. 

Ad  valorem  has  its  drawbacks,  as  undervaluation  can  only  be  pre- 
vented by  honest  and  competent  appraisers,  each  thoroughly  posted 
in  his  department  of  the  value  of  goods  at  the  place  they  came  from. 
Only  in  selecting  such  appraisers  as  you  would  not  hesitate  to  put  on 


40 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


the  bench  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  even  with  as  high  a 
salary,  fraud  could  be  prevented,  as  their  influence  is  over  hundreds  of 
millions  of  the  Government  and  individuals. 

Very  respectively,  yours, 

ALEXANDER  BLACK. 

• - - . 

[Wernwag  & Dawson,  silica.'] 

Philadelphia,  September  23,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  U.  &,  Washington , 2).  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular,  we  beg  to  say  that  our  firm  does 
now  and  always  has  preferred  specific  duties  to  ad  valorem.  We  beg 
further  to  add  that  we  represent  some  of  the  largest  manufacturers  in 
Europe  as  selling  agents  and  commission  merchants,  and  we  have  not  a 
consignor  who  does  not  prefer  specific  to  ad  valorem  duties,  on  account 
of  its  simplicity.  We  could  name  many  reasons  for  our  preference,  but 
will  confine  ourselves  to  the  assertion  that  it  is  impossible  to  define,  in 
a satisfactory  way,  what  the  market  falue  of  an  article  is,  which  the 
present  ad  valorem  law  makes  the  basis  of  taxation.  We  have  always 
claimed  that  the  price  at  which  an  article  can  be  bought  for  cash  should 
constitute  the  market  value,  but  this  standard  of  value  is  not  recognized 
at  the  Philadelphia  port,  and  we  are  at  a loss  to  determine  upon  what 
other  basis  we  are  to  do  business.  The  special  agents  and  experts  make 
values  according  to  their  opinions,  which,  for  many  reasons,  are  not  re- 
liable. To  avoid  these  business  embarrassments,  we  desire  a specific 
duty,  particularly  on  silks  and  velvets,  but  would  like  to  see  the  specific 
system  extended  to  all  merchandise  of  the  character  we  deal  in.  Nothing 
could  be  worse  than  the  present  law,  which  punishes  a merchant  by  a 
fine  of  20  per  cent,  because  he  buys  10  per  cent,  cheaper  than  his  stupid 
competitor. 

We  thank  you  for  this  opportunity  of  addressing  you,  and  for  the  in- 
terest you  are  manifesting  in  this  most  important  question,  and  be  as- 
sured of  our  most  sincere  desire  for  the  triumphant  success  of  your 
administration. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  yours,  most  truly,  . 

WERNWAG  & DAWSON. 


[The  same.] 

Philadelphia,  October  6,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.  : 

Dear  Sir  : We  beg  to  submit  to  you  two  calculations  for  specific 
duties  equal  to  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  which  have  been  prepared  with 
great  care  by  our  commissioner  in  Zurich,  Mr.  A.  Rubel.  This  gentle- 
man is  not  a manufacturer,  but  a commissioner  and  banker,  and  repre- 
sents in  Zurich  the  interests  of  Messrs.  Drexel  & Go.,  of  this  city,  and 
their  agencies  in  different  parts  of  the  world.  He  is  a man  of  the  very 
highest  character,  and  the  calculations  accompanying  this  have  been 
submitted  by  him  to  various  experts  and  manufacturers  to  test  theirgen- 
eral  correctness. 

No.  1, — This  calculation  represents  specific  duties,  calculated  as  fol- 
lows : All  silk  goods,  50  cents  per  one  English  pound ; cents  per 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


41 


1,000  thread  chains:  silk  and  cotton  goods,  20  cents  per  one  English 
pound,  1 cent  per  1,000  thread  chains ; silk  and  cotton  goods,  piece- 
dyed,  20  cents  per  one  English  pound,  J cent  per  1,000  thread  chains, 
equal  to  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  value. 

No.  2. — This  calculation  shows  what  the  duty  on  one  English  pound 
must  be  to  represent  25  per  cent,  of  the  value. 

Our  calculation  of  the  value  of  silk  and  labor,  and  duties  upon  silks 
at  present,  is  about  as  follows: 


Raw  silk  (gr^ge) $0  67 

Profit  and  labor 33 


1 00 

Duty  of  the  United  States 50 


1 50 

So  the  amount  of  labor  and  profit  in  $1.50  worth  of  silk  is  but 
33  cents,  and  we  think,  without  injury  to  any  American  interest,  the 
duty  should  be  reduced  to  that  which  is  equivalent  to  25  per  cent, 
ad  valorem;  as  the  domestic  manufactures  has  raw  material  free,  we 
think  that  25  per  cent,  subsidy  is  all  that  the  people  of  United  States 
should  be  asked  to  pay  to  protect  this  interest. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted,  with  our  best  wishes  for  the 
success  of  your  administration. 

Your  obedient  servants, 


WERNWAG  & DAWSON. 


42 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


i -ouiua  aqj  jo  qnao 

jod  gz  aspjra  oj  ‘pnnod  qsqS 
-ujj  huo  J9d  ‘saepop  ni  ‘2lju(j 

^OOlC^t>CClftCSl 
dw'ocd  ri  o ».-i 
ift^HHoncew»o 

| 1 31.6 

1 18.  1 
1 16.  5 
1 18.3 
1 03 
1 29.4 
1 3!) 

.1  48.  6 

0 88.4 

1 01.  1 

00 

0 82. 1 
0 79.5 

•on[i?A  9qj  jo  *^aoo  J9j 

* 

ic 

i CC  05  CC  1ft  Ift  n ic  O W*0 

?>  S X ^ IJ  ?l  C§  M M 

00 

SS 

f-H  <M 

Total. 

oo.t^ixKO'.o^Tr 

WtCXihXOHrj  • 

M 

Value. 

%£$>&%%%%%  : 

(M  N M C ftl  Lft  iO  t>  • 

CC  l> 

’ , , J 

•spBO.iqj  O00‘l  Jad  — jo 
QJBJ  9qj  jb  spB9jqj  .iad  ^jnd 

1"^”"  1 

Value. 

f 

C^r-I  <M  03  -»J«  rc  Tj<  t* 

SSSSS^SSS : : 

rinHW^N-Or}* 

ss 

it:  co 

•pnnod  qsqrfu^  ouo  .md  — 
jo  9jej  eqj  ju  jqSiaAi  aad  A'jud 

sSSSSSSSSS  : 

1 6 i 

Sgggggggg  : 

ss 

•SJU99  JO  9JU.I  JH  P»U 

pnnod  qsxi.#ag[  nao  aad  on[Rx\ 

§£SSS15S38§  : 

tC  rf  r}<  rf  O O ICO  [ 

{?2;7?S  : 

^ -t  H Lft  Lft  1C  CC 

::  “ 

•sjnoo  |gt  jo  9pu 
je  ‘joa  b-pie^  OOT  aad  onpjA 

SSSS333SS  : 
2£S32SSS5£?S  : 

£2 

33 

•J9U  ‘epau^  001  aod  otqe^v 

gissasssss  : 

I^SSsJl!  : 

33qS3&o3S 
£££§g£2§§  ; 

S8 

SI. 

•(909ld  9qj  JO 

qjpiM)  dauAi  oqj  ni  epua.iqx 

Isllillll  : 

CO  CO  CO  ~i  -rf  rf  if?  in  t- 

lililsISI 

-i’t4  *f  rp  of  t*-"  co  rjT  ,n  ! 

is 

-*.n 

•epjce^  001 

J9d  epanod  qgijong  ni  jqgio  a\ 

lislIISli  i 

co  in  in  ad  t>  ad  aC  cf 

siilligil  ; 

co  coco -^r  co  no  co  o’  o’  • 

Si 

o-» 

r6 

jS 

fflOCf-  SXl-  aTa?  ■ 

?3^ 

L 


flU 


: s 

, X.  C C, 

• = W -1!  _ 

asm 

5^.13  tt i§ 


E g 


§~ 

t i 

= = 


££<§£ 


III 


III 


E’S  c- 

I!1 

l|2 

21i; 

1'5  2 

Jl,s 

i«r 

s|E* 

i * *. 
CHS; 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


43 


00  iftOi  00^t>CD00  t-I> 

§8£5  gg  ££$&&* 

ooo  ooooo  oo  oooooo 


oi>cq  t^oooo  0010  r<j  o o o o 

gg£  sgsg&gg  S3  $'£££&& 


fC  tJ*  <M  **  LO  "4*  »rt 

fn^InS^S  MrtSPo 
oooooo  ooooo 


M O O O I' t-  r1MO^-(M 

cSSmmmm  g3o$g£ 


WWI  ft^«C50 

iSCSIs;? 

o o o o o o o 


— r-;  — * r— ■ O C5  "JO 


15  02 

14  87 

20  65 

11  45 
13  34 

15  25 

17  98 
8 28 

8 55 
11  09 

10  20 
13  73 

18  32 
17  82 
11  51 

21  52 

aw®®® 
•<*  t>  co  o in  t-  H®cc®t- 

$£8£&g!5 

<M  <M  CO  CO  r*  lO  C* 

8 10 
7 15 
12  39 

6 63 

6 97 

7 86 
10  83 

5-14 

4 57 

5 36 

5 07 
7 15 

JO  42 
10  42 

6 05 
12  92 

2 70 

5 40 

6 10 
6 75 

3 55 

5 40 

6 67 

3 55 
5 00 

4 75 

5 92 

0 90 

1 13 

1 35 
1 81 

2 71 

3 38 
0 90 

,H  rH -H  rH  r-l  rW  HHHHH 

6 92 

7 72 

8 26 

4 82 

6 37 

7 39 
7 15 
3 14 

3 98 

5 73 

5 13 

6 58 

7 90 

7 40 
5 46 

8 60 

SSgSggg  ggS£S 

HWINWWCQ  inCOCOrHrH 

1 52 
1 62 
1 68 

1 77 

2 26 
2 40 
1 57 

ggg  ggggg  gg  gggggg 

gggggg  ggggg 

ggggggg 

3 55 
2 86 
3 28 

3 35 
3 07 

2 95 

3 26 
3 47 

2 35 
2 39 

2 91 

2 93 

3 31 
3 66 

I 3 81 
3 47 

2 28 
1 81 
2 06 
2 16 

1 87 

2 13 

1 29 
1 30 

1 37 

2 86 
2 69 

1 49 
1 61 
1 70 

1 90 

2 25 
2 47 
l 61 

49  13 
44  16 
54  11 

32  34 
39  18 
43  54 
46  65 
21  77 

18  66 
27  37 

29  85 
38  56 
52  24 
54  11 
41  67 
59  71 

1 

18  66  ! 

23  01  ! 
27  37 
31  10 
18  66 

24  26 

. 32  34 
21  15 
24  88 
24  88 
23  01 

11  31 

13  07 

14  30 
16  77 
25  42 
29  66 
13  07 

254.  58 
428.  80 
280.  36 

167.57 
203. 02 
225.  57 
241.  69 
112.  79 

97.  67 
141. 79 

154.  68 
199.  79 
270. 69 

280. 36 
215. 81 

309. 36 

96.67 
119.23 
141.79 
161. 12 
96.  67 
125. 68 

167.  57 
109.  56 
128.  90 
128.  90 
119.  23 

58.  60 
67.  70 
74.10 
86.  90 
131.  70 
153.  70 
67.  70 

§§s  IsIlS  11  181811 

®Vfof  iftoooo^T  rfV  VrfofofVo* 

linn  siiia 

in  to  to  co"  in  to  co  irf  in 

7,580  2,710 

8,110  i 3,385 

8,420  4,060 

8,840  5,415 

11,290  8,115 

11,990  10,140 

7,870  ! 2,710 

Sis  sis!!  11  Hills 

mVo  oTca^oT  t-"rf  omjoVoV' 

llllll  18888 

g'S'S'00'00" 

sss  mss  S3  fsssss 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

24 

18 

18 

18 

18 

! i i j i i i : ! i i \ i i : : 

IV.— Colored  and 

i nun 

o ::::::: 

o 

sss  J- 

dog 


;gSE 

>«fco  co 
ooo 


H.fj 

*§ 

§ 


1 

HO 


m-§2 


fed 
CQ  q 


■gjfS 

28 


Mpa. 


•I 

a 

...  II- 
§ Uli 

nr 


II 


rrj  50 


l*o« 

a^Sfl 


.§ 

d 03  ^ -*• 

H o' 


44 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


•ontBA  aqj  jo  quoa 
J9d  ss  aqcai  o;  ‘pnnod  qsqg 
•ug;  auo  aod  ‘fc\iB[[op  ui  ‘Ajna 

0 55.5 
0 42.4 

0 47.2 

•anpBA  eqj  jo  qua  a .ia,j 

19.0 

20.5 

CO 

d 

Total. 

3 45 
3 18 

Value. 

rH  lO 
CO  CO 

•epnaaqi  000‘I-I9fl  — jo 
ojbj  oqj  jb  epeajqj  jad  Ajn<j 

r^rtnjco 

I 

1 

Te 

t> 

1 64 
1 83 

•punod  qsqSug;  euo  jad  — 
joa^u.i  aqj  JB  jqgiaM.  jad  Ajti(j 

Cents. 

20 

20 

•ejuaa  |6I  jo  ojtfJ  q«  ‘jau 
punod  qsijgug;  auo  jad  anpA 

00  05 
05  O 

‘SJU9D  ^6t  JO  9JBJ  x 
;b  ‘j9u  spanA  ooi  -iad  anpA 

18  18 
15  54 

qou  ‘epauA  ooi  ^ad  cup?  a 

Francs. 
94. 20 
80.  50 

•(999ld  eqi  jo 

qjptM.)  djBAv  aqj  uj  epBOjqx 

5,  415 
4.  058 

•spacA  ooi 

jad  epnnod  qsqgug;  nt  jqgpM 

L 1 

8,  200 
9, 170 

>5 

£ 

Inches. 

18 

18 

Article  and  quality. 

Quadrill6,  $ soie  coul.  II 

Merveilleux,  t soie  coul.  G J G 

s 

t 

S 

t> 

< 

1 

0 

; 

i 

► 

i 

§1 

Q 

<8 

O 

£ 

§ 


1 

.xj 


^ 'S’O 
1 ••§£ 
&g»l 

©•3r2'*- 
..  rt  eg  o 

W,S  © O 

0 ®53-h 

gg©- 

® £ -+3 

^g<2  ° 

ffl'O 

1.0  «g 

-C  rs  7 

.2  ® s.2 

O^T  P,M 

tj  - j-s  a 

o'?  5W 
<Cl  S’?.  © 

gotfg 

P.^  u 

««5  © 2 

oo.g  a ^ 

8,3  gg 

<3,rH  ft  5 

ft  2 * ® 

?eaN 

ggSf 

.2  c-s  t» 

i— i a 01  o 

gf'gj 

is&* 

os  . a a 
3.§SS 
H§S3 

1 “ 
SPSS’S 
“s  w 05 

w<3^5 

PS 


EE  VISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  45 

[Chas.  G.  Landon  & Co.,  dry  goods.] 

New  York,  August  21, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.: 

Sir  : In  receipt  of  yours  of  tbe  12th  ultimo  (circular  letter)  asking 
for  information  as  to  remedy  against  undervaluations,  and  what  changes 
are  necessary  in  the  existing  tariff,  we  make  the  following  suggestions, 
and  flatter  ourselves  that  an  experience  of  a house  importing  goods  since 
1820,  together  with  the  position  we  occupy,  ought  to  give  such  ideas 
much  weight. 

We  take  the  liberty,  therefore,  to  inclose  rates  of  dutihs  for  the  sev- 
eral articles  on  which  we  are  the  most  conversant,  and  on  which  we 
have  suffered  under  the  present  tariff  by  undervaluation  of  competitors. 

We  call  your  attention  particularly  to  the  rates  fixed  for  gloves  and 
silks.  They  are  equitable,  discriminating  between  values,  and  avoid- 
ing any  possible  chance  for  undervaluation. 

Would  also  add  as  a penalty  for  undervaluation — 

If  the  appraised  value  of  merchandise  subject  to  duty  ad  valorem  ex- 
ceeds 10  per  ceut.  and  under  15  per  cent,  on  the  value  declared  on  the 
entry,  then,  in  addition  to  the  duties  imposed  by  law  on  the  same,  there 
shall  be  levied,  collected,  and  paid  a duty  of  30  per  cent,  on  such  ap- 
praised value. 

If  the  appraised  value  subject  to  duty  ad  valorem  exceeds  15  per 
cent.,  the  merchandise  so  undervalued,  shall  be  taken  by  the  Govern- 
ment, allowing  the  owner  the  value  declared  on  the  entry,  with  an  ad- 
dition of  10  per  cent,  on  said  value  declared  on  the  entry. 

Yours,  truly, 

CHAS.  G.  LANDON  & CO. 


Cottons. — All  manufactures  of  bleached,  colored,  stained,  painted,  or  printed,  under 
140  threads  per  square  inch,  including  warp  and  filling,  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; and 
over  140  to  200  threads,  &c.,  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem;  over  200  threads,  &c..  30  per- 
cent. ad  valorem. 

Gloves. — Kid  or  leather  of  all  descriptions,  wholly  or  partially  manufactured,  cost- 
ingunder$5perdozeu,  $1.75  per  dozen  ; costing  $5  and  over  per  dozen,  $3.50  per  dozen. 

Wool. — Woolen  cloths,  woolen  shawls,  flannels,  blankets,  woolen  and  worsted  yarns, 
and  all  manufactures  of  wool  of  every  description,  made  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool, 
28  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Worsted. — Women’s  and  children’s  dress  goods,  coat  linings,  Italian  cloths,  and 
goods  of  like  description,  composed  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca, 
goat,  or  other  animal,  goods  in  piece  made  of  mixed  materials,  worsted  and  cotton, 
worsted,  silk,  and  cotton,  worsted  and  silk,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  and  all  manu- 
factures composed  wholly  of  worsted,  24  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Clothing,  ready-made,  and  wearing  apparel  of  every  description,  cloaks,  dolmans, 
jackets,  talmas,  ulsters,  or  other  outside  garments  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool, 
worsted,  or  other  materials,  made  up  or  manufactured  wholly  or  in  part  by  tailor, 
seamstress,  or  manufacturer,  32  cents  j)er  pound  and  25  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Silks. — All  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  not  otherwise  provided  for,  made  of  silk, 
or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  weighing  under  3 ounces 
per  square  yard,  $1.75  per  pound;  weighing  3 ounces  to  5 ounces  per  square  yard, 
$2.25  per  pound ; weighing  5 ounces  and  upward,  per  square  yard,  $2.50  per  pound. 

All  raw  materials  in  their  crude  state  to  be  used  for  manufacturing  purposes,  free 
of  duty. 

New  York,  August  21,  1885. 


CHAS.  G.  LANDON  & CO. 


46 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[From  an  eminent  importing  firm  at  Philadelphia,  dry  goods.'] 

' July  25,  1885. 

Hod.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular  of  the  24th  instau  tat  hand,  and  we  request 
that  the  following  reply  be  regarded  as  confidential. 

It  is  very  clear  to  us  that  there  has  been  fraud  in  the  entry  of  cer- 
tain merchandise  through  the  custom-house  in  times  past,  and  that  a 
change  to  specific  tariff  is  the  only  remedy  that  will  remove  the  cause 
of  undervaluation. 

We  feel  that  we  have  been  injured  in  the  undervaluation  of  the  fol- 
lowing articles  and  that  our  practice  of  buying  direct  from  the  manu- 
facturer in  Europe  has  been  to  a great  extent  broken  up,  and  we  have 
been  forced  to  take  goods  from  agents  in  New  York:  Irish  linens  (Belfast), 
German  linens  (Greitz),  French  silks  and  velvets  (Lyons  and  St. 
Etienne),  Swiss  silks  (Zurich  and  Horgen),  German  silks  and  velvets, 
(Crefeld  and  Elberfeld),  German  hosiery  (Chemnitz),  Swiss  embroidery 
(St.  Gall),  French  laces  (Calais  and  Paris),  French  and  German  but- 
tons (Paris  and  Berlin),  French  and  German  silk  fringes  and  fancy 
trimmings  (Paris  and  Berlin). 

We  have  not  suffered  as  much  by  the  change  perhaps  as  the  Gov- 
ernment has,  but  we  are  forced  to  make  common  property  of  our  busi- 
ness experience  and  knowledge  in  forcastiDg  the  wants  of  our  custo- 
mers by  ordering  through  these  agents,  who  use  the  knowledge  so  ob- 
tained in  getting  further  orders -from  our  competitors,  which  is  to  their 
betterment  and  our  detriment. 

The  writer  believes  it  possible  to  draft  a schedule  of  duties  on  silks, 
dress  goods,  woolens  for  men’s  wear,  cotton  piece  goods,  linens,  ribbons, 
and  any  material  made  on  a loom  and  not  further  advanced  in  mauu 
facture  than  what  is  known  as  “ in  the  piece,”  that  while  specific  can 
be  made  to  be  almost  uad  valorem.” 

The  principles  he  would  employ  are  these  : 

( 1 ) A tax  on  the  superficial  surface. 

(2)  A tax  on  weight. 

(3)  A tax  on  the  number  of  threads  employed  in  a given  measure- 
ments (as  a square  centimeter,  for  instance). 

It  would  take  some  time  and  considerable  labor  to  draft  a schedule 
on  these  principles  such  as  would  apply  to  every  kind  of  textile  fabric 
so  as  to  conform  closely  with  the  ‘*ad  valorem”  amount  of  revenue  col- 
lected and  not  materially  change  the  existing  protective  balance,  but 
the  writer  would  undertake  it  if  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury feels  its  utility  and  that  there  was  some  prospect  of  remedial  legisla- 
tion to  repay  the  effort. 

The  fault  of  the  present  tariff  lies  largely  with  the  appraisers  who, 
while  they  are  above  average  intelligence,  are  not  sufficiently  expert  to 
detect  the  more  insidious  frauds.  If  they  were  they  would  indeed  be 
foolish  to  remain  on  the  salaries  they  now  enjoy  while  they  could  secure 
much  better  paying  mercantile  positions  through  this  extra  knowledge 
of  fabrics. 

One  advantage  (and  by  no  means  a slight  one)  to  be  gained  in  a law 
based  on  these  principles  would  be  that  the  appraisers  would  be  ctflled 
upon  to  deal  with  objects  and  not  with  ideas  or  beliefs. 

Their  acquaintance  with  the  value  of  the  goods  would  not  be  made 
by  interviewing  other  consignee  agents  (and  sometimes  even  the  very 
consignee  of  the  invoice  in  question)  as  to  the  condition  of  the  market 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


47 


of  export,  reports  furnished  to  the  consul  and  garbled  to  suit  the  pur- 
poses of  consignors,  and  various  insufficient  data  now  in  use  to  verify 
values,  but  through  the  microscope,  with  the  yard  stick,  and  by  the 
scales. 

So  much  for  the  law  as  it  should  be. 

And  now  we  take  the  liberty  of  touching  on  another  point.  We  think 
as  the  law  now  stands  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  honorable  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  to  remedy  one  crying  evil,  viz,  the  undue  detention  of 
goods  in  the  appraiser’s  department. 

There  are  in  this  country  many  large  importing  retailers  like  ourselves 
who  have  neither  the  power,  the  facilities,  nor  the  inclination  to  under- 
value goods  and  who  promptly  correct  every  error  that  they  discover. 
The  articles  they  import  are  often  the  whim  of  the  moment,  manufactured 
rapidly,  shipped  by  the  fastest  steamers  in  order  to  be  put  into  con- 
sumption very  quickly,  and  often  the  whole  effort  is  nullified  by  the 
unexplained  delay  at  the  appraiser’s  stores. 

Could  not  an  order  be  issued  by  which  the  working  hours  of  the  ap- 
praisers be  extended  unless  they  ceased  work  with  a clean  floor  ? 

Also,  could  not  the  preference  of  examination  and  delivery  be  granted 
to  such  houses  as  by  their  record  and  organization  are  so  little  likely 
to  attempt  fraud  ? 

We  believe  that  every  appraiser  in  the  country  could  immediately  des- 
ignate such  houses  as  he  considered  above  suspicion. 

We  are,  very  truly,  your  most  obedient  servants, 


[D.  Samuels,  silks,  laces,  kid  gloves .] 

San  Francisco,  September  22,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  answer  to  your  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  methods  of 
entry  and  appraisements  of  imported  merchandise,  with  a view  of  sim- 
plifying and  at  the  same  time  the  collecting  of  a just  and  fair  valua- 
tion, both  towards  the  Government  and  the  importer,  my  opinion,  per 
reasons  obtained  through  a practical  experience,  have  fully  convinced 
me  that  it  would  raise  the  standard  of  a merchant,  advance  the  interest 
of  the  country,  give  new  life  and  impetus  to  our  own  manufacturers, 
simplifying  the  duties  of  all  our  custom  officials,  and  for  generations  to 
come  thank  the  administration  that  would  give  us  a simple,  comprehen- 
sive revenue,  both  satisfactory  to  the  importer,  the  home  manufacturer, 
and  also  to  the  employment,  by  introducing  industries  to  which  we  can 
only  arrive  at  by  specific  duties. 

My  opinion,  for  reasons  hereafter  stated,  and  at  which  I arrived  after 
years  of  experience,  are  altogether  in  favor  of  specific  duties.  The  fol- 
lowing reasons  in  favor  of  specific  duties  are  undeniable. 

Our  present  system  of  collecting  duties,  and  of  arriving  at  a just  valu- 
\ ntiou  of  foreigu  merchandise,  are  surely  very  complicated,  and  it  requires 
an  expert  to  comprehend  and  know  which  is  a real  or  fictitious  value. 
It  not  only  tends  to  make  many  importers  dishouest  to  his  Government, 
but  it  casts  a suspicion  upon  mauy  merchants,  who  otherwise  stand 
proud  of  their  name  and  reputation.  It  further  corrupts  many  of  the 
officials,  who  would  otherwise  be  an  honor  to  their  Government  and  a 
pride  to  their  families.  A great  many  irregularities,  and  with  those 


48  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

many  wrongs  to  the  Government  as  well  as  to  commerce  are  daily  per- 
petuated through  ignorance,  carelessness,  and  incapacity  of  the  officers. 
As  our  revenue  law  stands  now  many  of  the  European  manufacturers, 
commission  men,  and  European  middle  men  are  the  real  undervaluers  of 
merchandise  imported  into  the  United  States  at  a great  undervaluation, 
which  cannot  be  reached  otherwise  than  by  the  very  best  experts,  of 
which  only  few  exist.  As  our  law  exists  at  the  present  moment,  an 
importer  who  has  made  not  only  our  market  but  also  the  European 
market  his  earnest  study,  who  with  his  knowledge  enters  the  European 
market  at  times  and  at  seasons,  does  take  advantage  to  buy  his  wares 
at  advantageous  prices,  and  stands  beside  the  incompetent,  careless, 
and  wasteful  employes  of  some  other  house,  and  when  the  wares  of  both 
purchasers  arrive,  the  one  who  marked  for  himself,  having  bought  his 
goods  at  a percentage  less  than  his  neighbor,  although  fair,  honest,  and 
square,  has  the  mortification  of  being  branded  as  an  undervaluer;  has 
his  goods  and  invoices  hawked  among  his  competitors,  and  just  as  likely 
has  those  very  irresponsible  persons  sit  as  his  judges  as  merchant 
appraisers. 

Would  I not  fear  of  making  this  communication  lengthy,  tiresome, 
and  weary,  I would  show  fifty  instances  where  our  present  revenue  law, 
where,  instead  of  being  just  to  either  Government  or  importer,  has 
neither  equity  or  justice,  but  tends  to  corruption  both  towards  the  im- 
porter and  officials.  To  give  a correct  idea  and  standard  of  relative 
values  between  our  present  revenue  and  “specific  duties”  it  requires 
deep  study,  earnest  application,  beyond  my  present  command.  But  in 
furthering  conviction  to  some  value,  I will  give  a few  items  and  articles 
that  have  come  under  my  special  observation  and  I am  handling  my- 
self such  as  silks,  laces,  kid  gloves,  and  dress  stuffs,  I want  to  say  those 
which  are  applicable  to  merchandise  in  general.  Silk,  if  we  have  a 
specific  duty,  some  may  argue  the  discrimination  between  qualities 
might  again  bring  a conflicting  and  unjust  bearing  upon  some,  whereas 
others  might  escape  a certain  amount  of  duty.  According  to  my  view 
it  would  merely  tend  that  we  import  a finer  and  purer  article,  not  the 
overcharged  and  mixed  silk,  which  are  partly  imported  to  deceive  the 
public  and  the  officials  at  the  same  time. 

The  progress  made  by  our  domestic  manufacturers  within  the  past 
few  years  is  not  only  gratifying  to  every  American,  but  it  largely  ad- 
vances the  interests  of  our  country  and  enhances  the  value  of  our  labor; 
and  even  if  the  high  priced  silks  and  velvets  would  be  imported  some- 
what cheaper  than  at  present,  the  lower-priced  qualities,  which  could 
not  be  imported  as  cheaply  as  now,  give  us  the  protection  to  which  our 
workmen  would  be  so  justly  entitled. 

Laces:  The  cushion  made  laces,  particularly  such  as  are  made  in  Bel 
giuin,  France,  Saxony,  and  England,  are  so  far  but  very  little  introduced 
in  America. 

By  specific  duty  some  of  the  finest  grades  may  be  imported  at  a less 
revenue  than  at  present;  but  the  cheaper  machine-made  laces,  such  as 
are  made  in  Nottingham,  Calais, Plauen, where  the  duty  might  discrim- 
inate, some  could  be  manufactured  in  this  country,  the  industry  fur- 
thered, and  we  would,  in  a very  few  years,  have  extensive  manufactories 
thereof,  which  at  present  is  only  in  its  infancy.  As  our  revenue  law 
stands  at  present  it  is  well  known  among  importers  that  real  laces  in 
many  instances  pay  but  a small  share  of  the  duties  imposed,  as  the  ma- 
jority of  the  appraisers  do  not  know  the  difference  between  “real”  and 
“imitation.”  I could  go  into  full  detail  upon  this  article,  but  would 
rather  not. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


49 


Kid  gloves : This  article  I could  relatively  say  the  same  of  as  in  laces. 

The  difficulties  which  occurred  a few  years  ago  in  New  York  are  too 
fresh  in  the  minds  of  the  appraisers  to  need  me  to  refresh  their  memories. 
1 will  merely  cite  one  trick  practiced  by  an  importing  house  in  New  York, 
which  will  tend  toward  showing  the  deceit  practiced,  the  frauds  perpe- 
trated to  evade  the  revenue.  Said  importer  has  for  years,  in  most  of  his 
importations,  mixed  an  article  of  gloves  in  each  half  dozen — three  pairs 
worth  75  francs  per  dozen  with  two  pairs  worth  25  francs  per  dozen  and 
one  pair  at  30  francs  per  dozen — and  passed  them  through  the  custom- 
house below  28  francs.  If  I have  not  given  figures  exact  it  is  merely 
done  to  illustrate  the  fraud.  By  specific  duties  the  fine  kid  gloves, 
which  we  cannot  yet  manufacture  in  this  country,  might  be  imported 
at  a less  revenue  ; but  iamb,  dog,  and  buckskin,  and  their  like,  that  are 
and  could  be  manufactured  in  this  country,  would  tend  to  repay  us  for 
all  revenue  we  may  lose  on  the  other. 

Dress  goods:  The  progress  made  in  our  country  within  the  last  few 
years  will  convince,  that  America  is  able  to  compete  with  any  of  the 
old  countries ; and  if  we  pay  more  for  labor  than  they  do  in  the  old 
country,  our  machinery  in  many  instances  is  so  far  superior,  our  skilled 
labor  with  every  year  so  far  improving,  that  there  remains  little  fear 
for  loss  to  either  our  manufacturers  or  skillful  labor  by  having  a specific 
duty.  The  specific  duty  can  be  so  levied  not  to  interfere  with  the  fine 
goods,  and  favor  our  domestic  manufacturers. 

To  enter  into  further  detail,  to  enumerate  many  instances  of  right  or 
wrong,  in  my  opinion,  of  the  present  existing  tariff,  would  be  merely  a 
repetition  of  what  I have  already  said  before.  It  is  easy  to  ascertain 
from  the  head  of  our  adjusters  of  our  custom-houses,  particularly  so  by 
the  instructions  given  by  our  worthy  Secretary  of  Treasury,  to  weigh 
each  and  every  article  of  merchandise.  They  are  certainly  more  author- 
ity and  better  enabled  to  give  correct  information  than  the  merchant 
who  merely  calculaJes  his  wares  according  to  the  amount  he  pays  out, 
without  always  going  into  full  detail. 

Should  at  any  time  the  experience  or  knowledge  of  the  writer  be  of 
whatever  little  service  to  his  Government,  without  wishing  to  put  himself 
forward,  he  would  be  glad  to  give  his  experience  for  what  it  is  worth. 

Thanking  you  for  the  honor  of  having  addressed  me  and  asked  this 
communication,  I am, 

Most  respectfully,  yours, 

D.  SAMUELS. 


[William  A.  Drown  & Co.,  umbrella  silks.'] 

Philadelphia,  July  27,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.  : 

Dear  Sir  : I was  a member  of  the  committee  during  Collector 
Arthur’s  administration  to  investigate  the  undervaluations  at  the  New 
York  custom-house. 

The  committee  recommended  the  substitution  of  specific  for  ad  valo- 
rem duties.  Since  that  time  I have  had  constaut  knowledge  of  the  un- 
dervaluation of  silks,  and  my  opinion  remains  unchanged  as  to  the  rem- 
edy, viz,  a specific  duty. 

The  trouble  is  that  the  data  nowhere  exist  to  form  a just  specific 
tariff  on  silks. 


S.  Ex.  72 4 


50 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


I would  recommend  that  the  appraisers  at  every  port  be  instructed  to 
take  a sample  of  every  variety  of  silk  imported  during  the  next  six 
months,  and  full  particulars  of  widths,  weight  of  the  whole  pieces,  num- 
ber of  yards,  &c. 

That  they  may  be  classified  and  some  satisfactory  duty  arrived  at  by 
a committee  appointed  for  the  purpose,  to  recommend  a specific  duty  to 
Congress. 

We  use  umbrella-silks  in  very  large  quantities,  but  of  late  years  we 
have  no  knowledge  of  the  franc  cost,  having  to  buy  entirely  of  the 
manufactures’  agents  in  New  York. 

It  is  impossible  to  tell  exactly  the  amount  of  revenue  the  Government 
loses;  but  it  is  just  to  state  that  an  importer  told  me  a few  weeks  since 
that  all  the  New  York  expenses  of  selling,  &c.,  came  out  of  the  money 
saved  because  of  the  undervaluations,  and  that  none  of  the  expenses  of 
selling  were  borne  by  either  the  manufacturers  or  consumers,  but  the 
United  States  Government  was  the  loser. 

Yours,  truly, 


WM.  A.  DROWN. 


[The  same.] 

October  27,  188 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.: 

Dear  Sir:  Referring  to  my  letter  of  July  27, 1885,  in  reference  to  the 
tariff,  I am  confirmed  in  my  opinion,  as  to  the  desirability  of  specific 
duties,  but  fear  to  see  them  adopted  until  proper  data  has  been  obtained, 
as  investigation  has  revealed  to  me  that  many  industries  in  which  silk 
is  the  component  material  of  chief  value  are  likely  to  be  seriously  in- 
jured. 

I cannot  illustrate  this  better  than  in  our  own  specialty  of  silk  um- 
brellas. 

The  present  tariff  is  50  per  centum  ad  valorem  on  silks,  and  50  per 
centum  ad  valorem  on  silk  umbrellas. 

Suppose  the  tariff  on  silk  was  changed  to per  pound.  What  would 

be  the  corresponding  duty  on  umbrellas'? 

In  this  we  have  nothing  to  serve  as  a guide.  If  the  duty  is  fixed  at 
$ — each,  based  on  any  knowledge  we  have  to  day,  the  result  will  be 
that  it  will  be  impossible  to  manufacture  in  this  country  both  the  higher 
and  lower  grades  of  silk  umbrellas. 

The  higher  or  lower  grades  will  be  debarred ; which  would  be,  is  more 
than  we  can  tell  to  day. 

What  is  true  of  the  umbrella  interests  is  doubtless  true  of  others  in 
which  silk  is  a component  article  of  chief  value. 

May  I be  permitted  to  ask  if  any  effort  is  being  made  to  collect  the 
data  which  will  be  'of  service  ? 

If  at  any  time  I can  give  any  suggestions  in  preparing  a tariff  that 
will  correct  any  of  the  existing  abuses,  I will  gladly  do  so. 

Yours  truly, 


WM.  A.  DROWN. 


REVISION-  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


51 


[Greeff  & Co.,  specific  duties,  silks.'] 


New  York,  August  19,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington: 

Sir:  I have  read  your  circular  requesting-  importers  and  manufact- 
urers to  express  their  opinion  regarding  tariff  revision.  In  response  to 
this  request,  though  the  circular  has  not  reached  us  persoually,  I re- 
spectfully submit  for  your  consideration  the  inclosed  resume  in  favor  of 
the  introduction  of  a specific  tariff’. 

My  firm  does  an  importing  business  of  general  dry  goods,  but  is  at 
the  same  time  shareholder  and  selling  agent  of  one  of  the  largest  silk 
mills  in  America  (Phoenix  Manufacturing  Company,  Paterson,  N.  J.,  and 
Adelaide  Mills,  Allentown,  Pa.),  and  therefore  conversant  with  both  in- 
terests. 

It  is  my  firm  belief  that  the  mere  change  to  a specific  tariff’  in  place  of 
ad  valorem  will  effectually  put  a stop  to  all  the  evils  now  so  much  com- 
plained of,  and  which  the  present  Administration  under  the  prevailing 
system  is  struggling — we  fear  in  vain — to  remedy,  unless  the  other  sys- 
tem is  adopted  by  Congress. 

This  change,  in  a moral  point  of  view  alone,  is  in  my  opinion  a mat- 
ter of  more  vital  importance  than  the  settlement  of  the  question 
whether  it  is  better  for  the  interest  of  our  country  to  have  protection  re- 
duced or  increased. 

As  manufacturers  of  silk  goods  we  think  we  could  stand  a reduction 
of  20  per  cent,  and  more,  and  still  be  able  to  compete  with  foreign 
goods,  if  only  an  honest  collection  of  the  reduced  rate  of  duties  could 
be  secured.  Such  a reduction  would  even  exert  a wholesome  effect  on 
our  home  production,  inasmuch  as  it  would  tend  to  diminish  over-pro- 
duction, unduly  incited  by  over-protection. 

But  the  only  way  to  secure  that  much  desired  honest  collection  of 
duties  is,  in  my  opinion,  to  make  our  tariff  specific. 

The  details  of  a specific  tariff  could  best  be  worked  out  by  a commis- 
sion appointed  by  the  Government,  consisting  of  an  equal  number  of 
importers  and  manufacturers,  so  as  to  represent  and  establish  their 
respective  interests.  Such  a commission  could  be  guided  by  the  exist- 
ing specific  tariff  schedules  now  in  operation  by  European  countries — 
/.  £.,  Germany,  France,  &c. 

I am  assured  that  a committee  of  silk  manufacturers  have  already 
worked  out  a schedule  of  specific  tariff*  rates  for  silk  goods  to  be  acted 
upon  in  the  coming  session  of  Congress. 

Respectfully, 


EMIL  GREEFF, 


Of  the  firm  of  Greeff  & Co .,  New  Yorh. 


LET  US  HAVE  A SPECIFIC  TARIFF. 

Tt  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  present  agitation  for  tariff  and  enstom-house  reform  will 
lead  in  the  end  to  the  only  effective  reform  we  need,  and  that  tbe  people,  having  the 
good  of  the  country  at  heart,  have  a right  to  demand. 

Nobody  doubts  that  every  conscientious  importer  hails  with  eminent  satisfaction 
the  firm  determination  of  the  present  administration  to  root  out,  if  possible,  with  every 
means  at  its  command,  a system  of  fraud,  developed  almost  to  perfection  under  the 
present  mischievous  tariff  laws  by  dishonest  importers,  through  bare-faced  under- 
valuations, who  thereby  not  only  rob  the  Government  Treasury  out  of  a large  portion 
of  revenues,  but  at  the  same  time — which  is  the  worst  feature  of  it — preveut  by  means 
of  their  fraudulent  advantages  honest  importers  from  competing  with  them. 


52 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Now  the  question  presents  itself,  How  is  it  possible,  with  all  the  safeguards  against 
fraud  at  the  command  of  the  Government,  viz,  consul  certificates,  declarations,  and 
oaths  exacted  from  foreign  shippers  and  importers,  in  conjunction  with  the  whole 
machinery  of  examiners,  appraisers,  special  agents  here  and  abroad,  that  fraud  still 
exists  and  thrives  ? 

Some  will  say,  if  the  present  secret  service  force  of  special  agents  is  insufficient,  why, 
let  us  have  it  multiplied  until  such  efficiency  is  effected. 

But  no ; we  are  a free  and  liberty-loving  people.  We  are  not  accustomed  to  auto- 
cratic spy  and  police  regulations,  under  which  the  Old  World  used  to  be  ruled  or  mis- 
ruled. The  American  people  hate  and  protest  against  all  measures  of  enslavement 
under  any  form  whatsoever.  They  repudiate  and  condemn  most  emphatically  all  re- 
suscitations of  star-chamber  espionage  and  persecution! 

No  ; the  root  of  the  evil  and  its  remedy  must  be  looked  for  in  another  direction. 
The  true  answer  to  the  above  question  is  simply  this  : Fraud  is  thriving  because  the 
whole  system  of  our  present  tariff  laws  is  in  itself  a deception,  for  it  is  only  good  for 
the  honest,  but  otherwise  bad,  inasmuch  as  it  does  not  effectually  reach  the  dishonest 
and  offers,  in  numberless  ways,  temptatious  to  commit  fraud. 

An  ad  valorem  duty,  based  on  the  marked  value  of  goods  as  laid  down  in  our  present 
tariff  law,  is  an  enigma  in  its  definition,  as  everybody  knows,  it  is.al ways  vague,  un- 
certain, vacillating,  full  of  loopholes  for  those  who  are  naturally  dishonest,  and  full 
of  temptations  for  those  who  are  by  nature  or  instinct  honestly  inclined,  but  have  to 
struggle  for  existence  in  competing  with  the  former. 

Now,  it  is  a known  maxim  in  political  economy  that  a law  containing  in  its  own  con- 
struction the  very  elements  to  break  or  circumvent  it  is  a bad  law  and  should  be 
abolished. 

What  we  need,  what  the  people  have  a right  to  demand  from  their  law-makers,  is 
a tariff  law  which  in  its  very  definition  does  not  admit  of  any  uncertainty  or  vague- 
ness of  conception  ; a law  that  is  stable,  fixed,  and  unmistakably  clear.  Such  a law, 
however  difficult  in  detail,  could  be  found  aud  constructed  by  unhesitatingly  adopt- 
ing the  system  of  specific  duties  in  place  of  ad  valorem  duties — that  is  to  say,  in  de- 
termining the  rate  of  duty  either  by  weight  or  by  measurement,  or  by  both.  For  a 
pound  is  always  a pound  ; a gallon  is  always  a gallon  ; a yard  is  always  a yard. 

Under  a specific  tariff  there  is  no  room  for  misconception,  and  any  attempt  to  trans- 
gress the  law  should  be  punished  heavily,  if  not  criminally. 

The  adoption  of  a specific-tariff  system  would  at  once  raise  the  standard  of  morality 
in  our  commercial  intercourse  with  foreign  nations.  It  would  enable  the  Govern- 
ment to  dispense  with  the  oath  now  exacted  on  every  foreign  invoice,  re-establishing 
thereby  to  a great  extent  the  sanctity  of  the  oath,  which  under  the  present  system 
has  become  a mere  farce,  for  no  importer  convicted  of  fraud  has  ever  been  prosecuted 
for  perjury. 

It  would  place  every  importer  on  a just  and  even  footing  with  his  competitors. 
It  would  furnish  “importers,  home  producers,  or  domestic  manufacturers  alike”  the 
only  true  basis  of  calculation  in  measuring  their  competing  capacities. 

All  objections  to  the  system  of  specific  duties,  implying  perhaps  in  some  respects 
uneven  taxation  for  goods  similar  in  character,  but  varying  in  cost  and  quality,  must 
certainly  vanish,  considering  the  good  it  will  effect. 

The  difficulties  regarding  the  classification  of  goods  of  a similar  character,  differ- 
ing considerably  in  value,  can  be  overcome  by  making  as  few  classifications  as  possi- 
ble. The  practical  genius  of  trade,  no  doubt,  will  soon  adapt  and  accommodate  itself 
to  all  seemingly  theoretical  incongruities. 

A theory,  however  clumsy,  which  in  practice  effects  a higher  standard  of  morality 
aud  honesty,  is  a thousand  times  preferable  to  a theory  under  which  corruption  and 
dishonesty  flourish. 

We  therefore  appeal  again,  with  all  gravity  ancf  earnestness  of  expression,  may 
our  present  administration,  in  concert  with  our  next  Congress,  heed  the  cry  of  ail 
well-meaning  and  honest  merchants  : “ Let  us  have  a specific  tariff.” 

EMIL  GREEFF. 

New  York,  August , 1885. 


[The  same.] 

New  York,  October  12,  1885. 

Hod.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington: 

Sir:  I beg  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  esteemed  communication 
dated  September  23,  together  with  circular  and  letter  addressed  to  im- 
porters and  manufacturers. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


53 


To  comply  with  your  request,  viz,  to  u formulate  and  furnish  you  a 
schedule  embodying*  in  detail  the  specific  duty  which  in  my  opinion 
should  be  applied  to  silks  and  other  textile  fabrics  with  which  I am 
familiar,”  would  involve  for  me,  if  with  a purpose  of  doing  justice  to  all 
interests  concerned,  a rather  difficult  task  to  undertake  single-handed. 

Properly  such  a schedule  as  suggested  already  in  my  communication 
dated  August  19  should  be  worked  out  by  a special  commission,  acting 
under  your  appointment  and  instructions,  and  which,  I think,  by  fair- 
ness ought  to  be  composed  of  an  equal  number  of  importers  and  man- 
ufacturers. 

If  this  plan  finds  favor  and  Should  be  adopted,  a good  policy  would  be 
to  have  the  importers  and  manufacturers  work  out  a separate  schedule 
each  for  themselves,  to  bo  voted  upon  afterwards,  subject  to  modifica- 
tions, in  joint  sittings.  To  facilitate  and  assist  the  labors  of  such  a 
commission  it  would  also  be  necessary  for  the  administration  to  fur- 
nish proper  statistics. 

For  instance,  by  causing  the  examiners  of  textile  fabrics  in  each  di- 
vision of  the  public  store  in  New  York  to  furnish  a tabular  statement, 
accompanied  with  samples  taken  from  invoices  specially  selected  for  the 
purpose,  setting  forth — 

(11  The  net  weight  in  American  pounds  of  all  the  principal  grades  of 
foreign  textile  fabrics  which  reach  their  respective  departments. 

(2)  The  amount  of  duties  paid  thereon  under  present  tariff  rates. 

(3)  The  equivalent  rate  of  duty  per  pound,  computed  by  dividing  the 
number  of  pounds  ascertained  (1)  in  the  amount  of  duties  stated  (2). 


Example.— One  case  from  Lyons  containing  “ faille  franQaise,”  all  silk. 
Value,  1,000  francs,  at  19  A 

( 1 ) Net  weight pounds . . 

(2)  Duty  paid  under  present  tariff,  50  per  cent 

(3)  Equivalent,  $3.86  per  pound  by  25 

And  so  on  with  silk  and  cotton,  silk  and  other  material,  Ac. 


$193 

25 

$96.  50 
$96. 50 


Such  a statement,  in  my  opinion,  would  constitute  a valuable  and 
helpful  statistic  in  arriving  at  exact  and  more  reliable  conclusions  for 
establishing  specific  rates  of  duties,  either  per  weight  alone  or,  as  the 
case  may  be,  coupled  with  a measurement  duty  per  square  yard  or  inch, 
&c.,  for  goods  differing  essentially  in  quality  and  composition  of  ma- 
terial, in  order  to  get  further  degrees  of  classification. 

Regarding  my  own  firm’s  importations,  I ascertained,  on  the  exempli- 
fied computation  plan,  the  following  facts  : 


(1)  Under  present  tariff 
subject  to — 

(2)  Equivalent  rate 
per  pound. 

(3)  Fair 
average 
rate  per 
pound. 

Silk  goods,  all  kinds  of  piece  and  dress 

50  per  cent,  ad  valorem 

From  $2.25  to  $4.25 

$3  50 

goods. 

Woolen  good 8,  braids,  bindings,  &c 

40  per  cent,  ad  valorem 

From  05  cents  to  $1.05  . . 

75 

Linen  goods,  galloon  bindings,  &c 

and  30  cents  per  pound. 
40  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
35  per  cent,  ad  valorem . 

25 

Cotton  goods,  galloon  bindings,  &c 

20 

I 

In  my  opinion  the  fair  average  rates  per  pound,  as  stated  in  the  third 
column,  would  constitute  a fair  and  most  simple  scale  of  equivalent  spe- 
cific duties  as  against  our  present  tariff  rates,  which  would  afford  at  t lie 
same  time  our  home  manufacturers  ample  protection  to  compete. 

In  answer  to  your  circular  request  to  inform  you  as  to  what  extent 
my  firm  has  suffered  injury  on  account  of  tariff  evasions  by  others,  I 


54 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


can  only  affirm  that  in  spite  of  an  ample  capital  at  our  disposal,  and 
having  the  best  connections  as  well  as  excellent' facilities  to  import 
goods  from  abroad,  we  were  obliged  to  drop  one  account*  after  another 
when  we  found  that  other  houses  were  able  to  enter  the  same  goods 
cheaper,  and  we  saw  no  honest  way  in  getting  for  ourselves  the  same 
advantages.  As  an  offset  for  our  diminished  foreign  trade  we  have 
striven  to  develop  domestic  accounts,  particularly  in  the  silk  line,  and 
I am  happy  to  say  that  our  sales  in  domestic  silks,  comprising  piece 
goods,  ribbons,  handkerchiefs,  &c.,  have  increased  largely  from  year  to 
year  beyond  our  expectations.  In  my  judgment,  the  only  remedy  to 
stop  the  evasions  of  the  tariff  effectually  is  to  make  it  specific,  and  then 
guarding  against  fraud  by  imposing  heavy,  if  not  criminal,  punishment. 

In  conclusion  I beg  leave  to  enumerate  some  of  the  advantages  that 
in  my  opinion  will  result  if  an  absolute  specific  tariff  should  be  adopted 
in  place  of  the  present  ad  valorem  system,  viz: 

(1)  It  will  be  the  means  of  raising  at  once  the  moral  standard  of  our 
commercial  intercourse  with  foreign  nations,  as  it  would  remove  all  ele- 
ments of  vagueness  inductive  to  fraud,  unavoidably  connected  with  the 
ad  valorem  system. 

(2)  It  will  obviate  the  necessity  of  exacting  an  oath  to  every  invoice 
landed  in  the  United  States,  as  at  present  prescribed,  thus  doing  away 
with  a vexatious  molestation  and  preventing  the  profanation  of  mechan- 
ical oath -taking. 

(3)  It  will  give  the  Government  the  only  positive  and  incontestable 
basis  on  which  to  enforce  the  full  and  honest  payment  of  duties. 

(4)  It  will  place  every  importer,  large  or  small,  regarding  the  levy- 
ing of  duties,  on  the  same  level. 

(5)  It  will  procure  for  importers  and  home  manufacturers  alike  the 
only  sure  basis  of  calculation  for  future  transactions. 

(6)  It  will  have  the  effect  of  improving,  without  increasing  the  cost 
to  consumers,  the  quality  and  durability  of  all  imported  textile  fabrics 
which  are  brought  to  this  market  much  adulterated  by  being  heavily 
charged  in  the  dye  in  order  to  give  the  goods  the  appearance  of  body 
at  the  expense  of  durability,  which  of  course  would  not  pay  any  more 
when  the  duty  is  raised  by  weight.  (Black  silk  can  be  weighted  in 
France  upwards  of  300  per  cent,  in  the  dye.) 

(7)  It  would  stop  the  unloading  of  undesirable  surplus  stock  by  for- 
eign manufacturers  in  this  market,  entered  much  below  its  intrinsic 
value  under  the  head  of  “job  lots,”  thereby  depriving  the  Government 
of  a large  amount  of  revenue,  and  always  damaging  the  sale  of  regular 
goods  imported  or  manufactured  in  this  country. 

(8)  It  will  simplify  the  whole  machinery  of  the  custom-house. 

Very  respectfully, 


EMIL  GREEFF. 


(Silks.) 


Department  of  State, 
Washington , October  9,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  send  you  inclosed  for  your  information  a 
dispatch  from  the  consul  of  the  United  States  at  Horgen,  dated  the  12tli 
ultimo,  No.  90,  relating  to  the  “expert”  system  in  vogue  at  that  place 
for  determining  the  value  of  importations. 

X have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servaut, 

T.  F.  BAYARD, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


55 


No.  96.]  United  States  Consulate, 

Morgen,  Switzerland,  September  12,  If  85. 

Hon.  James  D.  Porter, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  State, 

Washington,  1 ).  C. : 

Sir:  Having  been  unofficially  informed  that  a call  has  been  made  by 
the  Department  upon  certain  consular  officers  lequesting  them  to  pro- 
cure any  information  which  might  serve  to  assist  the  tariff  commission- 
ers in  their  investigations  prior  to  the  meeting  of  Congress,  it  has  oe 
curred  to  me  that  the  opinions  of  a few  of  the  heaviest  silk  exporters 
doing  business  within  this  consular  district  might  be  of  service. 

If,  however,  they  had  only  confined  themselves  to  the  desired  end 
their  views  would  have  been  of  much  more  value,  but  most  of  them 
have  seen  fit  to  dwell  upon  their  past  grievances  rather  than  suggest 
methods  in  order  to  avoid  them  in  future.  Owing  to  this  oversight  I 
have  beeii  obliged  to  lay  aside  several  of  their  communications  as 
worthless. 

When,  in  1882,  1 urged  the  adoption  of  the  present  expert  system  it 
was  indorsed  by  Col.  George  C.  Tichenor,  special  agent  of  the  Treas- 
ury, and  approved  by  the  late  Mr.  Folger,  then  Secretary  of  that  De- 
partment, it  was  conceded  at  the  time  by  all  interested  that  there  was 
no  other  method  which  could  (under  the  then  existing  circumstances) 
so  effectually  bring  to  light  the  frauds  which  had  been  so  successfully 
and  for  such  a long  period  practiced  upon  our  revenue*. 

1 did  not,  nor  did  those  connected  with  me,  consider  the  system  per- 
fect; but  for  the  time,  and  until  a better  could  be  substituted,  or  the 
present  tariff  remodeled,  it  has,  does,  and  will  attain  the  purposes  for 
which  it  was  designed.  1 was  forewarned  at  the  time  that  my  action 
would  probably  cost  me  any  slight  popularity  l might  heretofore  have 
gained  in  the  service,  and  that  the  carrying  out  of  my  plan  would  raise 
against  me  powerful  enemies  among  the  silk  manufacturers,  which  pre- 
dictions have  in  a measure,  I am  sorry  to  say,  unfortunately  proved 
correct.  Several  of  the  manufacturers  of  Horgen  have  informed  me 
that,  owing  to  a new  regulation  lately  put  in  force  in  our  custom-house, 
the  appraisers  raise  the  amounts  of  their  invoices  10  per  cent,  higher 
than  the  calculations  of  the  silk  expert  attached  to  this  office,  giving 
as  a reason  that  it  was  intended  to  cover  the  commissions  on  (his  and  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  This  novel  and  unwarranted  manner  of  in- 
creasing their  invoices,  they  complain,  was  sprung  upon  them  without 
any  previous  information  either  to  themselves  or  their  New  York  agents. 
Consequently,  continuing  to  enter  their  goods  as  formerly,  they  have 
been  made  to  pay  the  penalty. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  give  in  detail  a list  of  their  many  griev- 
ances, as  they  are  already  well  known  at  the  Treasury.  I will  simply 
confine  my  communication  to  the  principal  ones,  which  are  as  follows: 

“That  my  Government  requires  them  to  give  the  exact  cost  of  pro- 
duction of  their  merchandise,  which  they  do ; but  that  an  expert  (who 
cannot  know  their  facilities  for  purchasing  or  rhe  prices  they  actually 
pay  for  wages,  dyeing,  &c.,  and  who  will  not  allow  them  the  advan- 
tages they  derive  from  the  use  of  power  over  hand  looms,  which  is  esti- 
mated at  from  7 to  8 per  cent.)  is  called  in  and  raises  their  true  cost 
of  production  to  his  own  individual  standard,  using  as  guides  the 
weekly  published  reports  of  the  Silk  Journal  as  to  the  current  rates  of 
raw  silk,  &c.,  which  are  in  themselves  unfair  and  incorrect,  such  quota- 
tions being  only  nominal,  confining  himself  to  the  highest  prices  for 


56  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

weaviog,  besides  not  making  any  allowance  for  power  over  hand  looms, 
and  generally  using  fictitious  amounts  for  other  items.” 

They  also  complain  that  wbeu  they  ask  for  a reappraisement  of 
their  goods  they  are  denied  the  right  of  being  present  themselves,  or  of 
having  an  agent  present  to  represent  their  interests. 

They  insist  that,  as  there  is  no  open  silk  market  in  Switzerland  by 
which  the  selling  value  of  silk  goods  can  be  estimated,  the  establishing 
of  a market  value  by  the  silk  appraisers  in  America  to  meet  its  non-ex- 
istence in  this  country  is  both  unjust  and  arbitrary.  I have  been  re 
quested  by  a large  number  of  the  silk  shippers  of  this  place  to  represent 
these  complaints  to  the  Government,  asking  that  it  will  advocate  such 
changes  in  the  present  system  as  that  the  silk  manufactures  and  indus 
tries  of  this  country  may  not  be  entirely  ruined. 

Finally,  they  suggest  a reduction  iu  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  on 
silk,  most  of  them  agreeing  that  the  adoption  of  specific  duties  for  silks 
and  silk  goods  would  be  detrimental  to  the  interest  of  the  Swiss  ex- 
porter as  well  as  the  home  manufacturer. 

I have  been  requested  to  lay  this  matter  before  the  Department,  and 
I have  done  so. 

I am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  T.  RICE, 

Consul. 


[Inclosure.] 

Thalwkil,  Switzerland,  September  9,  1885. 

My  Dear  Sir:  You  expressed  to  me  your  wish  last  Monday  that  I should  write 
you  a letter  containing  my  views  on  the  tariff  question.  I frankly  confess  that  I don’t 
see  how  anything  good  can  result  from  such  a letter.  The  American  silk  manufact- 
urers will  say,  “ It  is  all  a lie,”  and  your  tariff  committee  is  not  likely  to  take  much 
notice  of  a letter  coming  from  a foreigner,  althoagh  by  chance  this  foreigner  should 
also  be  a silk  manufacturer  in  the  United  States.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  l write 
the  letter  iu  order  to  please  you. 

The  present  system  of  collecting  duties  on  silks  is  intolerable.  The  experts  raise 
all  our  invoices  from  5 to  15  per  cent.,  the  custom-house  adds  another 5 to  10  per  cent 
for  (in  most  cases  illusorions)  profits,  and  if  our  agent  in  New  York  is  not  very  smart 
in  finding  out  how  the  hare  runs,  and  does  not  raise  our  prices  in  such  a way  that 
they  will  be  within  10  per  cent,  of  the  last  lift  performed  by  the  custom-house,  we 
are  fined  20  per  cent.,  and  denounced  to  the  American  public  as  a set  of  thieves, 
smugglers,  and  what  not.  It  is  true  that  we  may  apply  for  a reappraisement  if  we 
think  that  our  hands  are  clean.  But  we  are  not  allowed  to  appear  ourselves  before 
the  commission  and  defend  ourselves,  and  the  head  appraiser  (with  whom  the  decis- 
ou  lies),  being  an  American  silk  manufacturer  and  the  decision  of  the  commission 
being  final,  how  can  you  expect  anybody  but  a fool  to  take  a reappraisement  ? Such 
a reappraisement  is  a farce  and  nothing  else. 

You  may  say  that  we  can  protect  ourselves  by  invoicing  at  full  prices,  but  this  is 
a great  mistake.  VVe  have  not  the  slightest  guarantee  that  if  we  invoiced  10  per 
cent,  above  cost  wo  should  not  be  put  up  another  10 or  more  per  cent,  the  caprices  of 
the  custom-house  being  quite  incalculable.  But  even  if  we  had  this  guarantee  we 
could  not  afford  to  invoice  at  such  fancy  prices  as  would  please  the  custom-house.  Busi- 
ness is  so  bad  and  competition  by  American  manufacturers  so  keen  that  we  are 
obliged  to  try  and  get  our  goods  passed  through  the  custom-house  at  our  lowest  pos- 
sible cost  price.  If  we  don’t  succeed  in  this  we  invariably  lose  money  on  each  trans- 
action. 

If  you  ask  me  what,  in  my  opiniou,  ought  to  take  the  place  of  the  present  system, 
I am  tempted  to  reply  with  another  question  : What  is  it  which  the  Government  of 

the  United  States  wants?  Do  they  want  to  prevent  the  importation  of  silks  alto- 
gether, like  Russia,  or  are  they  satisfied  that  the  importation,  and,  alongside  with  it, 
the  large  revenue  derived  from  it,  should  continue?  If  they  want  to  prevent  impor- 
tation altogether,  the  present  system  is  an  excellent  one.  Shippers  will  find  them- 
selves so  much  harassed  and  worried  that  they  will  gradually  but  surely  diminish 
their  shipments  unt  il  zero  is  reached.  Already  shipments  from  Lyons  and  Zurich  iu 
the  first  seven  months  of  the  present  year  have  declined  24  percent,  against  last  year, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  57 

and  if  now  and  then  an  additional  screw  is  put  ou,tho  process  of  diminishing  may  bo 
greatly  accelerated. 

Another  very  good  system  woul  1 be  to  let  the  Silk  Association  of  America  have  it 
all  their  own  way.  The  high  specific  duty  which  they  recommend  would  serve  the 
purpose  admirably.  A duty  of  $6  per  kilogram  < n all  blacks  and  one  of  $8  on  all  col- 
ored silks  would  in  due  time  sweep  your  country  of  every  yard  of  European  silk,  ex- 
cept of  such  as  would  be  smuggled.  Then,  no  doubt,  the  longed  for  millennium  for 
American  silk  manufacturers  would  break  in  ; only  I am  afraid  it  would  not  last  long, 
fortunately  for  the  American  public,  unfortunately  for  the  manufacture.  Well- 
trained  European  manufacturers  would  see  themselves  tempted  to  establish  themselves 
en  masse  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and  would,  Idare  say,  render  things 
pretty  hot  for  their  American  confreres  who  were  brought  up  in  hot-houses,  and  who 
would  hardly  be  proof  against  competitors  grown  tail  in  tbe  full  enjoyment  of  lib- 
erty. The  further  development  of  American  silk  industry  would  probably  be  in  har- 
mony with  the  teachings  of  sound  political  economy : first,  a few  years  of  prosperity, 
then  an  immense  overpro  uction  fostered  by  exaggerated  protection,  ending  with 
ruination  for  all  the  weaker  elements  in  the  trade. 

However,  I don’t  think  for  one  moment  (hat  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
would  wish  to  entirely  prevent  the  importation  of  silk  goods  to  the  detriment  of 
European  manufacturers  and  of  the  consuming  public  in  the  United  States.  I have 
no  doubt  whatever  that  they  are  simply  actuated  by  the  desire  (1)  to  grant  Ameri- 
can manufacturers  such  protection,  and  not  more,  as  is  justified  by  the  higher  cost  of 
living  and  of  wages  in  the  United  States  as  compared  with  Europe  ; (2)  to  collect 
the  whole  revenue  duo  to  them,  and  to  jrrevent  undervaluations. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  the  realization  of  these  two  desirable  objects  ought  not  to 
present  serious  difficulties.  It  is  easy  to  determine  the  amount  of  protection  due  to 
the  American  manufacturer.  I have  myself  for  this  purpose  calculated  cost  price  in 
Zurich  of  different  styles  of  silk  goods.  I intend  visiting  the  United  States  in  the 
course  of  this  month,  and  I shall  have  the  same  articles  calculated  by  the  director  of 
our  silk  factory  in  Union  Hill.  A comparison  of  the  2 cost  prices  will  satisfy  me,  if  not 
other  parties,  as  to  the  amount  of  protection  which  is  required  for  an  able  and  intelli- 
gent silk  manufacturer  in  the  Uuited  States.  As  far  as  I can  judge  at  present,  but  I re- 
serve my  final  judgment,  a protection  of  30  percent,  would  be  amply  sufficient  to  enable 
the  American  manufacturer  to  keep  his  own  ground  against  the  European  manufact- 
urer provided  the  30  per  cent,  duty  be  honestly  paid.  The  honest  collection  of  the 
duty  of  30  per  cent,  will  present  far  le.cs  difficulties  than  that  of  a duty  of  50  per  cent. 

Mr.  S.  H.  M.  Byers,  formerly  United  States  consul  at  Zurich,  prescribed  a project  to 
the  Zurich  manufacturers  in  January,  1884,  which,  if  applied  to  a duty  of  30  per  cent, 
would  unquestionably  work  admirably  well.  The  draft  scheme  will  no  doubt  be  found 
in  the  archives  of  the  United  States  consulate,  Zurich.  The  essential  part  of  it  was 
the  co-operation  of  the  Zurich  Handleskammer  (Kaufmannische  Gesellschaft),  in 
the  determination  of  cost  price,  whenever  there  was  a difference  between  the  shipper 
and  the  experts,  and  the  engagement  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  custom-house 
to  limit  its  maximum  advance  on  this  actual  cost  price  to  5 per  cent.  Nobody  will 
question  the  statement  that  in  the  Zurich  Handelskammer  men  may  be  found  whose 
integrity  of  character  is  beyond  any  shadow  of  a doubt.  It  is  then  difficult  to  see 
that  it  should  not  be  possible  to  find  out  a modus  operandi  with  the  co-operation  of 
the  consul,  the  experts,  and  the  Kaufmannische  Gesellschaft,  that  would  not  give 
complete  satisfaction  to  everybody.  Even  if  the  duty  were  not  lowered  to  30  per 
cent.,  the  scheme  of  Mr.  Byers  ought  to  be  taken  up  again  seriously.  The  present 
system,  which  most  unscrupulously  and  most  unjustly  treats  allshippers  without  dis- 
tinction, as  if  they  were  a pack  of  thieves,  is  insupportable  and  cannot  last.  I should 
a thousand  times  prefer  a decree  which  would  in  three  words  stipulate  that  the  im- 
portation of  silk  goods  into  the  United  States  is  prohibited,  to  the  treatment  which  we 
at  present  receive  at  the  hands  of  the  custom-house  authorities.  And  now  let  me  wind 
up  with  one  more  word  on  the  subject  of  specific  duties.  I personally  abhor  specific 
duties  on  silks  from  two  reasons: 

1.  It  is  next  to  impossible  to  find  out  a schedule  of  specific  duties  which  is  equally 
just  to  all  sorts  of  silks.  The  ordinary  eoramou  styles,  which  in  all  countries  form 
seven-eighths  of  the  totality  of  silks  consumed,  would  probably  be  sacrificed. 

2.  The  Silk  Association  of  America  would  use  all  its  influence  to  be  even  better  pro- 
tected with  specific  duties  than  with  ad  valorem  duties,  which  would  probably  be 
equivalent  to  prohibition.  The  French  protectionists  have  been  successful,  in  the  ne- 
gotiations for  the  treaty  of  commerce  with  Switzerland  in  1881  to  get  more  protection 
for  themselves  wherever  specitic  duties  were  substituted  for  ad  valorem  duties,  and 
the  American  manufacturers  will  probably  not  have  less  appetite  nor  be  less  scrupu- 
lous in  satisfying  it  than  their  French  confreres.  I am  therefore  absolutely  certain 
that  any  tariff  with  specific  duties  which  may  be  proposed  by  the  Silk  Association 
will  prove  to  be  next  to  prohibitive.  Although  I detest  specific  duties  as  being  un- 
equal in  their  application,  I have  devoted  much  time  to  the  studying  of  a specific 


58 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


tariff  for  silks  which  might  be  acceptable  for  European  manufacturers  and  at  the 
same  time  give  amply  sufficient  protection  to  the  American  silk  industry.  The  near- 
est approach  to  something  practical  which  I have  been  able  to  arrive  at  is  contained 
in  the  following  schedule  : 

Per  kilo. 

(a)  All  tissues  of  black  silks,  with  or  over  7,500  threads  per  yard  in  the  chain $3 


(b)  All  tissues  of  black  silks,  with  less  than  7,500  threads  per  yard  in  the  chain..  2 

(c)  All  tissues  with  colored  chain  and  black  weft 3 

(d)  All  tissues  with  black  and  colored  chain  and  black  weft 3 

( e ) All  tissues,  chain  and  weft  colored 4 

(/)  All  tissues,  black  and  colored  chain  and  colored  weft 4 

(</)  All  tissues  whereof  the  whole  of  the  chain  or  of  the  weft  consists  of  cotton  ...  2 


An  impartial  examination  of  the  above  table  will  confirm  that  low  black  silk  goods 
are  therein  ( a ) taxed  fully  30  to  35  per  cent.,  better  qualities  ( b ) 27  to  40  per  cent., 
all  colored  silks  28  to  38  per  cent.,  all  satins  tramd  cotton  30  to  36  per  cent.,  &c. 

I am  quite  ready  to  prove  to  any  competent  party  that  these  figures  are  correct. 
If  a protection  of  30  per  cent,  for  the  American  manufacturer  is  considered  sufficient, 
1 maintain  that  the  above  figures  in  the  specific  tariff  ought  not  to  be  surpassed. 
My  schedule  of  specific  duties  has  the  advantage  that  no  disputes  can  occur ; but,  of 
course,  it  is  impossible  to  hit  exactly  the  equivalent  of  30  per  cent,  for  each  category  ; 
the  average  will  certainly  be  above  30  per  cent. 

I hear  that  the  American  Silk  Association  proposes  a system  of  specific  duties  with 
different  rates  according  to  the  amount  of  dye  charge  which  the  particular  tissue 
contains.  It  is,  however,  difficult  to  imagine  anything  more  complicated  and  more 
untrustworthy  thaai  such  a system.  With  it  undervaluation  would  more  than  ever 
flourish,  only  in  another  form,  and  it  would  be  even  more  difficult  for  your  experts  to 
arrive  at  the  truth  than  under  the  old  ad  valorem  system. 

Dear  sir,  I have  given  you  my  frank  Opinion  on  this  very  subtle  tariff  question. 
Whatever  you  may  think  of  it,  be  sure  that  it  is  the  result  of  mature  reflection  and 
the  expression  of  my  most  candid  conviction.  I defy  anybody  to  prove  that  the 
figures  given  in  my  scheme  of  a specific  tariffarenot  correct  and  that  the  duties  therein 
proposed  do  not  represent  a protection  of  fully  30  to  35  per  cent,  to  the  American 
manufacturer.  I particularly  recommend  the  scheme  of  ex-Consnl  Byers  applied  to  a 
lower  rate  of  duty.  This  would  insure  the  honest  payment  of  the  duty  and  would  do 
away  with  all  the  annoyances  of  the  present  system.  High  rates  of  duty  invariably 
call  for  efforts  to  evade  the  duty  by  smuggling.  At  the  times  of  the  60  per  cent,  duty 
the  smuggling  trade  flourished  between  Canada  and  United  States.  At  50  per  cent,  it 
did  not  pay  any  more,  and  it  ceased  ; what  remained  was  the  undervaluation  of  in- 
voices by  some  shippers,  which  was  in  so  far  harmless,  as  it  couhl  easily  be  found  out 
and  corrected  by  your  experts.  With  a duty  of  35  per  cent.,  or  30  per  cent,  even,  this 
will  be  stopped,  and  the  relations  between  the  custom-house  and  the  shippers  will  be 
made  as  cordial  as  they  were  thirty  years  ago,  when  the  duty  was  19  to  24  per  cent,  and 
when  nobody  knew  what  undervaluation  was. 

Believe  me,  dear  sir,  very  truly,  yours, 

ROBT.  SCHW'ARZENBACH. 

To  W.  T.  Rice,  Esq., 

United  Stales  Consul,  Horgen. 

i 


I Inclosure. 1 

Horgen,  Switzerland,  August  25,  1885. 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  kind  letter,  I beg  to  state  my  views  about  American 
duty  on  silks,  openly  and  sincerely,  according  to  my  own  experience  of  nearly  thirty 
years  in  this  matter. 

The  present  system  of  duties  ad  valorem  has  had  many  years  of  practice,  but  its 
results  have  not  been  satisfactory  to  anybody,  neither  in  official  positions  nor  in  trade. 
There  will  also  be  great  difficulty  to  make  it  work  in  a perfect,  trustworthy  shape, 
as  there  are  frequently  considerable  differences  in  the  views  about  cost  or  value  of 
mlk,  both  here  and  in  the  United  States.  No  standard  can  be  established  to  serve  as  a 
rule,  in  each  separate  case  a value  ought  to  be  found  out,  which  is  equally  fair  to 
Ahe  party  who  levies  the  taxes  as  to  the  party  who  imports  the  goods.  The  difficulty 
^increases  when  the  appraisers  in  New  York  custom-house  go  their  own  way  in  the  taxa- 
tion of  European  cost  and  value,  or  take  the  advice  of  American  manufacturers,  who, 
for  the  main  part,  are  not  better  informed  than  themselves  about  actual  prices  on  this 
side  of  the  ocean.  This  is  certainly  a weak  point  in  the  present  -system,  and,  as  a 
remedy  to  this,  the  experts  in  some  of  the  consulates  are  no  doubt  to  be  considered. 
These  gentlemen  are  grown  up  in  our  manufacturing  circles  ; they  arc  familiar  with  our 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


59 


ways  means  and  of  silk  production,  and  vet  have  the  difficulties  since  been  raised ! Re- 
cent events  show  almost  the  contrary.  How  is  it  possible  that  such  diffeiences  as  arise 
every  day  can  exist  auy  longer?  One  reason  I can  give  is,  that  the  experts,  though  living 
among  us,  are  not  informed  well  enough  about  the  cost  of  materials,  wages,  <fcc.  They 
take,  for  instance,  the  prices  of  raw  silk  out  of  the  public  papers,  which,  as  a rule, 
are  nominal  and  represent  more  the  seller’s  than  the  buyer’s  opinion.  It  may  be  also 
the  fault  of  the  manufacturers  themselves,  that  they  keep  too  much  secrecy  about 
their  doings,  looking  with  mistrust  upon  the  officials  of  the  consulates.  An  open  and 
sincere  intercourse  would  certainly  be  to  the  benefit  of  both  parties.  Many  informa- 
tions could  be  furnished  on  inquiry  which  would  lead  to  more  confidence  and  show 
manufacturers  in  a better  light  than  it  has  pleased  the  American  press  to  place  them 
recently.  Such  informations  are  necessary,  as  there  are  constant  changes  in  the  way 
of  production,  and  an  expert  ought  to  be  always  acquainted  with  the  improvements 
which  are  so  often  discovered  and  put  into  practice.  I may  point  out  here  tho  won- 
derful progress  made  in  the  construction  of  power-looms,  which  economize  labor  in 
such  a degree  that  a difference  of  8 to  10  percent,  in  cost  now  exists  against  hand- 
looms.  Such  facts  ought  to  be  taken  into  account  and  not  simply  ignored. 

It  hurts  also  our  republican  feeling  that  we  have  to  depend  from  the  good-will  of  a 
single  man.  There  ought  to  be  a way  left  open  to  bring  a case,  where  the  manu- 
facturer disagrees  with  the  expert  and  feels  himself  justified  in  the  quotation  of  price, 
before  another  business  man  in  Europe  (a  kind  of  prud’liomme),  whose  impartiality 
cannot  be  doubted.  Whatever  would  be  the  result  of  such  investigation  would  have 
to  be  accepted  by  all  parties,  also  by  the  United  States  custom-house. 

You  ask  me  to  give  my  opinion  on  specific  duties  on  silks.  This  question  lias  been 
freely  discussed  in  manufacturers’  circles  both  here  and  in  America.  In  the  latter 
country,  however,  the  new  scale  of  specific  duty  lately  proposed  and  published  in  the 
American  Silk  Journal  shows  plainly  how  our  American  competitors  mean  to  profit 
by  it  in  such  a protective  degree  that  European  importation  would  be  entirely  shut 
out  and  the  whole  field  left  to  them  alone.  They  have  divided  black  silks  in  dif- 
ferent classes  according  to  their  charge  of  dye-stuff.  This  is  certainly  good  in  theory, 
but  adapted  to  practical  working,  I must  ask  who  will  be  clever  enough  to  distin- 
guish, without  fail,  the  different  classes?  I dare  say  such  a man  does  not  exist  yet 
and  will  hardly  ever  be  found. 

If,  however,  on  the  otherside,  only  one  tariff  class  is  taken  up  for  black  silks,  the  cheap 
stuff  will,  on  account  of  its  heavy  weight,  pay  such  high  duty  that  it  will  be  thoroughly 
out  of  consumption,  and  this  means  annihilation  to  a good  many  Swiss  articles.  Some 
people  will  say  that  such  a result  would  ouly  be  a benefit  to  silk  trade  ; but  is  it  right 
1o  shut  out  what  in  the  wearing  of  silks  has  been  hitherto  even  at  the  reach  of  the 
poorer  classes  of  population  ? Has  nature  created  that  wonderful  institution,  the  silk 
worm,  and  its  noble  produce,  only  for  the  privileged  few — the  rich  class?  Further 
classifications  would  be  necessary  under  the  specific  system  for  colored  silks,  articles  shot 
with  cotton,  with  Schappe,  piece  dyed  goods.  Will  legalization  enter  upon  such  par- 
liculars?  I fear  that  it  will  not  be  the  case.  The  question  would  probably  end  in 
mixing  up  the  different  positions  under  one  or  two  classes,  as  it  happened  more  or  less  in 
Germany,  Austria,  and  other  European  countries,  and  which  has  nearly  destroyed  im- 
portation to  those  parts,  for  fact  the  worse  thing  for  trade  in  general  is  always  coining. 
J f governments  in  complicated  matters  want  to  remedy  by  commercial  laws,  they  never 
hit  the  point,  and  bring  more  evil  than  good/  This  will  be  the  case  with  the  intro- 
duction of  specific  duties  on  silks.  Either  they  must  be  based  ou  very  low  figures  or 
American  consumers  will  be  disagreeably  undeceived  by  the  innovation  when  it 
lake  s effect  and  increases  prices  in  an  unexpected  and  not  intended  way.  In  con- 
clusion allow  me,  dear  sir,  to  express  my  opinion  that  he  present  system  f ad  va- 
lorem duty  would  be  preferable  if  the  institution  of  experts  can  be  brought  into  a 
mc-e  pei feet  shape,  with  men  of  experience  and  character,  who,  in  the  intercourse 
with  manufacturers,  would  be  and  feel  independent  and  could  give  and  take  advice; 
besides  this,  more  means  of  appeal  should  be  afforded  in  cases  where  unjust  motives 
or  want  of  informations  prevail. 

This  question  of  tariff,  as  it  is  brought  before  the  American  Government,  is  of  vital 
importance  both  to  American  merchants  and  to  European  manufacturers. 

Will  the  solution  improve  the  state  of  things  for  everybody  concerned  in  it,  or  only 
help  the  protectionists  across  the  ocean  and  destroy  our  old  connections  and  good  re- 
lations with  friends  there  ? 

I hope  for  the  better,  and  remain,  dear  sir,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

* H.  E.  streuei. 

William  T.  Rice,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Consul,  Horgen. 


60 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[A.  G.  Jennings  & Sons,  silk  lace,  trimmings, 

Brooklyn,  November  16, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Terasury , United  States : 

Dear  Sir  : Some  time  since  we  learned  that  a circular  letter  had  been 
sent  out  by  your  Department  requesting  information  from  manufacturers 
of  the  effect  of  the  present  tariff  laws  on  the  industry  of  the  country 
where  the  duties  levied  are  ad  valorem. 

We  are  glad  you  have  called  for  this  information,  believing  if  you  can 
secure  the  collection  of  duties  as  called  for  by  the  laws  you  will  promote 
greatly  the  industrial  interest  of  the  United  States. 

In  expressing  an  opinion  we  think  proper  to  state  that  we  are  en- 
gaged in  manufacturing  silk  laces  from  raw  silk  or  silk  yarns  by  ma- 
chinery, making  mainly  dress  and  trimming  laces,  edgings,  insertions, 
scarf  veilings,  of  guipure,  Spanish  thread,  and  various  other  styles,  as 
fashion  dictates ; also,  silk-lace  mitts  and  gloves  form  a large  part  of 
our  product.  Our  plant  of  machinery  has  cost  us  over  $200,000,  most 
of  which  has  been  imported  from  England. 

We  employ  from  four  to  six  hundred  persons.  Many  of  our  skilled 
hands  we  have  brought  over  from  Europe.  It  is  near  twenty  years  since 
we  commenced  to  make  lace,  and  the  credit  is  awarded  us  of  being  the 
first  to  establish  this  business  in  the  United  States.  Samples  of  some 
of  our  productions  are  in  the  Smithsonian  Institution.  Other  manufact- 
urers are  now  starting  in  this  branch,  and  if  a market  can  be  main- 
tained for  home  made  goods  it  will  grow  into  an  important  industry. 
The  past  two  years  our  lace  business  proper  lias  been  precarious  and 
uncertain.  Half  our  "best  machines  and  skilled  help  have  been  unem- 
ployed, mainly  because  we  could  not  realize  cost  for  our  productions. 
England,  France,  and  Germany  have  filled  to  repletion  our  market.  We 
feel  assured  that  the  lace  goods  imported  do  not  pay  oue-half  the  duty 
required  by  law.  Invoices  are  fearfully  undervalued.  It  is  far  more 
difficult  to  ascertain  the  actual  cost  of  lace  than  any  of  the  other  textile 
fabrics;  hence  it  is  subject  to  be  more  undervalued  than  any  of  the  others. 

Invoices  of  undervaluation  have  been  reduced  to  a system  by  foreign 
manufacturers  and  their  agents.  They  will  not  scruple  to  use  any 
means  that  will  secure  to  them  the  American  market.  The  temptation 
to  save  from  one-third  to  two-thirds  of  the  duty  is  too  great  for  them 
to  stand. 

The  only  remedy  is  specific  duties  at  least  for  all  textile  fabrics.  This 
is  the  general  opinion  of  honest  importers,  as  well  as  that  of  the  vari- 
ous manufacturers. 

The  Silk  Association  of  America  of  which  the  members  at  their  last 
meeting  decided  unanimously  that  specific  duties  ought  to  be  levied  on 
all  manufactures  of  silk,  which  they  advised  should  be  imposed  both  by 
weight  and  square  measure , thus  securing  a fair  average  of  duty  on  both 
the  heavy  and  light  weight  fabrics,  particular  details  left  for  farther 
action. 

Wo  trust  you  will  in  your  coming  report  recommend  to  the  President, 
and  to  Congress,  the  imposition  of  a tariff  of  specific  duties  on  all  woven 
fabrics , especially  on  all  lace  goods  made  of  silk,  or  any  other  material. 

Even  with  specific  duties  to  secure  its  proper  collection,  more  cases 
or  packages  (at  least  one  in  five)  should  be  thoroughly  examined  for 
weight,  width,  aud  length.  As  it  is  now  under  the  ad  valorem  s\  tern, 
one  part  of  the  undervaluation  is  the  passing  through  more  dozens, 
pieces,  or  yards  than  are  called  for  on  the  invoice.  Laces  put  up  4 to 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


61 


10  dozen  yards  on  a piece,  and  when  in  store  put  up  as  usual  2 dozen 
and  sold  to  the  trade.  Fraud,  not  detected,  or  allowed  to  pass  at  the 
custom  house,  throws  all  the  importing  business  into  the  hands  of  dis- 
honest parties. 

The  penalty  of  forfeiture  should  be  exacted  when  fraud  is  evident. 

No  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  so  called  imperfect  or  damaged 
goods.  If  the  articles  are  imperfect  let  them  be  retained  in  Europe. 

Please  excuse  the  length  of  this  communication. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

A.  G.  JENNINGS  & SONS. 


[Hodges  Brothers,  dry  goods,  undervaluations.'] 

Baltimore,  June  27,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir:  We  are  zealously  in  accord  with  the  sentiment  of  the  pe- 
tition of  Bates,  Reed  & Cooley,  E.  S.  Jaffray  & Co.,  and  others  of  New 
York,  forwarded  to  the  Treasury  Department  a few  days  since,  and 
earnestly  commend  the  statement  and  proposal  therein  expressed  to 
your  favorable  consideration. 

As  the  oldest  importers  of  textile  fabrics,  and  many  other  varieties 
of 'merchandise,  in  this  city,  we  have  no  complaints  to  make  of  under 
valuations  from  this  port,  but  our  importations  for  many  years,  espe- 
cially from  France  and  Germany,  have  been  seriously  circumscribed, 
and  our  foreign  trade  periodically  diminished,  by  persistent  and  whole- 
sale undervaluations  at  the  port  nf  New  York. 

The  practical  operation  of  this  unjust  and  pernicious  system,  to  say 
nothing  of  its  diminishing  effect,  not  to  say  assault,  upon  the  revenues 
of  the  Government,  has  been  to  transfer  the  importing  business,  in 
large  degree,  into  the  hands  of  foreign  manufacturers,  who  conduct  it 
primarily,  as  you  have  been  before  assured,  through  consignees  at  [lie 
port  of  New  York. 

The  effect  has  been  little  less  than  an  outrage  upon  the  interests  of 
honest  importers. 

It  has  been  paralyzing  and  demoralizing  to  the  interests  of  American 
importers  to  an  extent  scarcely  appreciable  by  the  general  public. 

We  trust  that  you  will  listen  to  no  subtle  sophistry  which  may  be 
presented  to  your  consideration  by  a special  committee  of  importers 
from  New  York,  who  have  gone  to  Washington  to  try  and  influence 
you  to  order  the  abandonment  of  the  equitable  system  of  reappraise- 
raents  and  other  reforms  which  you  have  formulated  for  the  custom- 
houses of  the  country. 

All  we  ask,  as  American  importers,  is  to  be  guaranteed  an  equal 
chance  before  our  customs  authorities  with  our  foreign  competitors,  and 
if  we  understand  the  operations  of  the  new  regulations  which  you  have 
instituted,  that  equality  of  chance  will  be  vouchsafed  to  us,  and  we 
venture  to  thank  you  most  sincerely  for  the  beneficial  effects  which 
have  already  resulted  from  your  reformatory  policy. 

We  are,  respectfully, 


HODGES  BROTHERS. 


62 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[The  Brussels  Tapestry  Company,  draperies  and  upholstery  goods.  J 

New  York,  August  25,  1885. 

Hon.  D.  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  open  letter  of  recent  date,  requesting 
the  views  of  manufacturers  and  importers  on  the  tariff  question,  1 beg 
leave  to  offer  the  following  statement: 

(1)  Duties  are  levied  improperly  on  general  merchandise,  their  actual 
value,  and  the  amount  of  duties  they  can  stand  not  being  taken  into 
consideration.  As  one.  instance  out  of  many  I could  name,  I will  cite 
the  following  fact:  A Boston  importer  of  upholstery  goods  ordered  made 
in  Europe  a 50-inch  heavy  cotton  damask,  which  he  intended  to  sell  at 
$1  per  yard.  The  manufacturer  who  took  the  order  thoughtlessly  in- 
serted a few  threads  of.  blue  worsted,  in  order  to  improve  the  appear- 
ance of  the  goods,  but  without  enhancing  their  value.  The  duties  on  the 
all- cotton  fabric  was  35  per  cent.,  but  ou  account  of  these  half  a dozen 
threads  of  worsted  the  importer  was  compelled  to  pay  an  additional  50 
per  cent.,  making  the  goods  to  cost  $1  10  per  yard  to  land,  or  much 
above  their  actual  value. 

(2)  Merchants  who  are  large  buyers  do  not  hold  proper  relations  to 
the  small  buyers,  and  do  not  have  the  protection  their  large  ventures 
entitle  them  to.  For  instance,  Mr.  A , who  is  a very  small  importer,  goes 
to  Paris  and  purchases  10  pieces  of  goods  at  $1  per  yard.  Mr.  B.  goes 
to  the  same  house  and  buys  500  pieces  of  the  same  goods  at  80  cents  per 
yard,  the  size  of  his  purchase  entitling  him  to  a closer  margiu  on  the 
manufacturer’s  profits.  Now,  because  Mr.  A.’s  goods  pass  through  the 
appraiser’s  hands  here  in  New  York  one  day  before  Mr.  B.’s  and  at  $1 
per  yard,  Mr.  B.  cannot  pass  his  goods  at  the  price  he  purchased  them 
at,  although  righteously  entitled  to  do  so.  Or,  we  will  suppose  that  a 
manufacturer  in  Europe  becomes  embarrassed,  and  accepts  a cash  offer 
for  a lot  of  goods  25  per  cent,  below  cost.  (Such  cases  do  happen.) 
Should  not  the  buyer  who  takes  the  risk  of  overloading  himself  with  a 
large  amount  of  one  kind  of  goods  have  a reasonable  advantage  over 
the  one  or  five  piece  buyer? 

(3)  A manufacturer  in  Lyons,  France,  or  Manchester,  England,  has 
a New  York  distributing  office;  instead  of  shipping  goods  direct  to  its 
New  York  house  it  cowans  them  to  a New  York  commission  house; 
the  goods,  we  will  say,  cost  to  make  $2  per  yard  these  goods  are  held  in 
bond  until  the  commission  house  calls  for  them  ; when  they  are  called 
for,  it  is  frequently  with  sketches  of  sales  at  the  prices  they  are  sold  at, 
and  the  New  York  branch  of  the  French  or  English  house  buys  its  oicn 
goods  for  $1  per  yard  when  they  actually  cost  $2  per  yard  to  make. 
The  transaction  is  to  all  appearances  square  aud  honest,  but  no 
thoroughly  honest  importer  can  stand  up  and  import  goods  in  the  reg- 
ular way  against  such  odds.  I do  not  say  that  I know  the  above  to  be  a 
fact , but  I am  so  informed. 

In  a brief  manner  I will  endeavor  to  offer  a solution  for  each  of  these 
problems. 

(1)  All  textile  fabrics,  no  matter  what  they  are  made  of,  whether  it  be 
silk,  wool,  or  cotton,  should  be  charged  a duty  in  proportion  to  their 
value;  the  higher  the  value  of  goods  the  greater  the  duty  they  will 
stand.  For  instance,  a fabric  worth  $15  per  yard  would  stand  a duty 
of  $7  per  yard;  one  worth  $12  per  yard  would  stand  a duty  of  $5  per 
yard;  one  worth  $8  per  yard  would  stand  a duty  of  $3  per  yard,  aud 
so  on  in  proportion,  the  higher  the  cost  the  higher  the  duty.  This 
would  greatly  simplify  our  present  rates. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


63 


MERCHANT  APPRAISERS. 

(2)  It  is  of  the  greatest  importance,  not  only  to  our  Government,  but  to 
all  honest  merchants,  that  the  value  of  fabrics  and  their  actual  cost 
should  be  positively  known  by  our  customs  appraisers,  and  this  can  only 
be  done  by  the  appointment  of  merchant  appraisers,  men  of  thorough 
practical  business  ability,  fully  qualified  to  learn  all  that  can  be  known 
respecting  the  actual  cost  of  raw  material,  cost  of  labor,  and  final  cost 
of  the  merchandise  they  are  engaged  to  look  after.  These  meu,  selected 
from  various  branches  of  business,  could  be  stationed  at  the  head 
manufacturing  centers  of  Europe.  Each  man  should  have  a thorough 
practical  knowledge  of  the  line  he  is  to  look  after,  and  his  salary  should 
be  at  least  $10,000  per  annum,  or  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  employ 
such  assistance  as  would  be  requisite  to  properly  attend  to  his  duties. 
The  silk  trade  should  have  one  man  alone;  the  upholstery  trade  should 
be  represented,  also  the  dress  goods,  and  linen,  the  lace,  and  the  general 
notion  business.  These  appraisers  could  keep  our  Government  con- 
stantly informed  on  all  points  necessary  for  honest  appraisement,  so  that 
when  transactions  made  in  Europe  on  any  scale,  small  or  large,  or  when 
merchandise  consigned  to  agents  or  commission  men  are  undervalued 
before  the  merchandise  reaches  our  shores,  our  customs  officials  should 
be  thoroughly  informed  respecting  the  entire  matter,  and  our  home 
officers  will  have  an  intelligent  understanding  of  matters  that  now  they 
kuow  ver}T  little  about,  and  that  knowledge  is  gained  in  the  crudest 
manner.  These  merchant  appraisers  should  be  selected  from  our  man- 
ufacturers and  merchants,  and  be  Government  appointments,  approved 
by  the  trade  they  represent;  their  continuance  in  office  should  depend 
wholly  upon  the  zeal  and  ability  they  manifested.  The  reason  why  this 
should  be  a Government  appointment  is  from  the  fact  that  foreign  man- 
ufacturers would  not  give  the  same  facilities  for  information  to  one 
employed  by  a certain  class  of  merchants. 

If  you  should  think  favorably  of  my  suggestions,  I will  be  glad  to 
call  on  you  at  any  time,  and  go  over  the  matter  much  more  thoroughly 
than  it  is  possible  to  do  on  paper. 

Very  respectfully, 

EDWARD  H.  COLMAN, 

■(  With  the  Brussels  Tapestry  Company, 

Manufacturers  of  Draperies  and  Fine  Upholstery  Fabrics). 


[M.  H.  Pulaski  & Co.,  cotton  embroideries .] 

Philadelphia,  August  27,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  In  response  to  your  circular  of  July  24,  requesting  the 
opinions  of  merchants,  affected  by  the  tariff  regulations,  in  reference  to 
changing  the  present  ad  valorem  to  specific  basis,  we  would  respectfully 
submit  our  opinion,  that  as  affecting  our  business  of  importing  Hamburg 
embroideries  the  change  would  not  be  advisable  and  we  do  not  believe 
feasible. 

The  present  manner  of  estimating  the  value  by  the  count  of  stitches, 
figured  at  the  market  working  price  per  100  stitches,  and  adding  for 
cloth,  bleaching,  finishing,  and  minor  expenses,  is,  in  our  judgment,  the 
only  correct  and  equitable  basis  for  ascertaining  market  value.  The 
complications  betwe  en  the  Government  and  the  importers  in  our  line 
have  arisen  from  the  difficulty  of  agreeing  on  an  equitable  understand- 


64  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

lug  of  tlie  terai  u market  value.”  The  rulings  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment have  not  tended  to  enlighten  merchants  on  this  point,  and  we  be- 
lieve that  if  some  definite  decision  could  be  arrived  at,  whereby  im- 
porters could  know  what  is  expected  of  them  when  invoicing  their  goods, 
the  present  complications  would  be  readily  solved  and  future  troubles 
would  be  avoided. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

M.  H.  Pulaski  & Co. 


[John  Gibb  and  others,  cotton  embroideries  and  laces.'] 

New  York,  October  29,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  0. : 

Sir  : Referring  to  your  circular  letter  of  July  22,  1885,  suggesting 
the  substitution  of  specific  for  ad  valorem  rates  of  duties,  in  order  to 
prevent  evasion  by  undervaluation,  as  a committee  of  importers  of 
cotton  embroideries,  oriental  and  Egyptian  laces,  we  most  respect- 
fully submit  our  opinion  as  to  the  best  method  for  making  the  proposed 
change  as  affecting  these  goods. 

It  is  quite  immaterial  to  importers  whether  they  pay  40  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  or  less;  they  simply  desire  a specific  duty  which  will  put  all  on 
one  basis  and  settle  the  vexatious  question  of  market  value. 

There  are  but  two  plans,  one  a simple  weight  duty,  as  in  France  and 
Germany,  and  the  other  is  the  compound  plan,  which  we  respectfully 
recommend. 

We  find  that  so  long  as  the  Government  intends  to  levy  a duty  of  40 
per  cent.,  or  even  30  per  cent.,  ad  valorem,  a rate  at  so  much  per  pound 
would  discriminate  very  much  against  the  cheaper  grades  of  goods,  such 
as  are  used  by  the  masses. 

This  is  so  apparent,  that  we  advise  the  total  abandonment  of  a simple 
weight  duty. 

It  is  a further  fact  that  the  standard  of  value  of  cotton  embroideries, 
oriental  and  Egyptian  laces,  is  established  upon  the  stitch  basis. 

The  manufacturer  pays  his  laborers  so  much  per  100  or  1 ,000  stitches, 
and  in  most  instances  he  sells  his  goods  by  the  stitches. 

We  inclose  a table  showing  the  proposed  compound  rates  of  specific 
duty  based  on  1,000  stitches  and  the  weight  and  giving  the  equivalent 
ad  valorem  rates. 

This  plan  we  believe  to  be  the  best  that  can  be  advised,  as  the  dis- 
crimination in  favor  of  the  finer  goods  is  very  slight. 

The  stitches  cover  60  per  cent,  to  75  per  cent,  of  the  entire  cost  of  the 
goods,  and  the  pound  duty  will  cover  the  material  upon  which  the  em- 
broidery or  lace  is  made,  including  the  bleaching,  finishing,  &c. 

The  plan  hereby  recommended  is  so  simple,  that  it  would  enable  the 
Government  to  collect  the  full  amount  of  duty  fixed  upon  with  the  least 
labor  and  expense,  and  would  prevent  the  disturbances  in  trade  result- 
ing from  a strictly  ad  valorem  rate. 

Respectfully, 

JOHN  GIBB  (of  Mills  & Gibb). 

RICH.  MUSER  (of  Muser  Bros). 

SIMON  GOLDENBERG  (of  Goldenberg  Bros). 

J.  HIRSCH  (of  Einstein,  Hirsch  & Co.). 

C.  HAAGER  (of  Albert,  Haager  & Waldburger). 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


65 


PROPOSED  RATE  OF  DUTY  ON  COTTON  EMBROIDERIES  BASED  ON 
1,000  STITCHES  AND  WEIGHT,  GIVING  THE  EQUIVALENT  OF  AD  VA- 
LOREM RATES. 


The  prices  agreed  upon  by  the  manufacturers’  union  of  St.  Gall  for  cotton  embroid- 
eries are  28  centimes  per  % 100  stitches,  7 aunes ; 33  centimes  per  •£  100  stitches,  7 
aunes.  At  ad  valorem  rates  these  would  be — 


. 

6 

? 

t 

At  25  per  cent per  7 aunes. . . 

30  per  cent do 

35  per  cent do 

40  per  cent do 

Francs. 

0.  0700 
0.  0840 
0. 0980 
0. 1120 

Francs. 

0.  0825 
0.  0990 
0. 1155 
0. 1320 

Or  per  1 aune — 


f 

wc 

1 

T5°ff 

Average. 

At  25  per  cent 

30  per  cent 

Francs =19  cts. 

0. 0100 
0.  0120 
0. 0140 
0. 0160 

Cents. 

1.93 
2.  31 

2.  70 

3.  08 

Francs= 19T%  cts. 

0.  0118 
0. 0142 
0. 0165 
0.  0189 

Cents. 

2. 27 

2.  74 
3. 18 

3.  64 

Cents. 

2. 10 

2.  52 
2. 94 

3.  36 

35  per  cent 

40  per  cent 

The  average  price  of  cloth  113  centimeters  wide  and  7 aunes  length  is  5 francs,  and 
finishing  charges  2 francs;  in  all,  7 francs. 

Average  weight  of  this  quantity  of  cloth,  3 pounds. 


Duty. 

ITancs=19x3scts. 

Cents. 

Per  1 pound. 

At  25  per  cent 

1. 75 

33.  77 

Cents. 

11. 26 
13.  51 
15.  76 

30  per  r.ent, 

2. 10 

40.  53 

35  per  cent 

2.  45 

47.  28 

40  per  cent 

2.  80 

54.  04 

18.  01 

Therefore  a specific  duty  of  2.1  cents  per  1,000  stitches,  1 aune,  aud  11.26  cents  per 
pound,  will  be  the  same  as  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  2.52  cent,  per  1,000  stitches, 
1 aune,  and  13.51  cent,  per  pound  will  be  the  same  as  30  per  cent.  2.94  cent,  per  1,000 
stitches,  1 aune,  and  15.76  cent,  per  pound,  will  be  the  same  as  35  per  cent.  3.36  cent, 
per  1,000  stitches,  1 aune,  and  18.01  cent,  per  pound  will  be  the  same  as  40  per  cent. 

Egyptian  or  Schiffle  machine  laces,  duty  based  on  1,000  stitches,  and  the  weight  20 
centimes  per  f 100  stitches,  7 aunes:  at  25  per  cent.,  5 centimes  per  7 aunes ; at  30 
per  cent.,  6 centimes  per  7 aunes;  at  35  per  cent.,  7 centimes  per  7 aunes;  at  40  per 
cent.,  8 centimes  per  7 aunes.  Or  1 aune:  at  25  per  cent.,  .70  centimes  at  19.3,  1.35 
cents  per  1,000,  1 aune;  at  30  per  cent.,  .85  centimes,  at  19.3,  1.64  cents  per  1,000,  1 
aune;  at  35  per  cent.,  1 centime,  at  19.3, 1.93  cents  per  1,000,  i aune  ; at  40  per  cent., 
1.14  centimes,  at  19.3,  2.20  cents  per  1,000,  1 aune. 

Average  price  of  cloth,  weight,  and  finishing  expenses  are  the  same  as  for  cotton 
embroideries;  hence  a duty  of  1.35  cents  per  1,000  stitches,  1 aune,  and  11.26  cents 
per  pound  will  be  the  same  as  25  per  cent.;  of  1.64  cents  per  1,000  stitches,  1 aune, 
and  13.51  cents  per  pound,  will  be  the  same  as  30  per  cent. ; of  1.93  cents  per  1,000 
stitches,  1 aune,  and  15.76  cents  per  pound,  will  be  the  same  as  35  per  cent.  ; of  2.20 
cents  per  1,000  stitches,  1 aune,  and  18  cents  per  pound,  will  be  the  same  as  40  per  cent. 

* S.  Ex.  72 5 


66 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 
[ Sulliran  &.  Brother,  hosiery.  ] 


Philadelphia, , 188-. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.  : 

Dear  Sir  : In  response  to  your  circular  asking  my  views  in  regard 
to  the  best  method  of  levying  duty  upon  imported  goods,  I beg  to 
state  that,  after  an  experience  of  many  years  in  the  importing  of  hosiery, 
gloves,  and  small  wares,  I have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  only 
way  by  which  the  evil  effects  of  false  invoices  and  consequent  under- 
valuation can  be  avoided  is  by  substituting  specific  for  the  present  ad 
valorem  duties. 

It  is  utterly  impossible  for  the  most  expert  appraiser  to  know  at  all 
times  the  exact  market  value  of  manufactured  goods  in  Europe,  for  the 
reason  that  prices  often  fluctuate  widely  in  the  course  of  a week  or 
even  a day. 

Goods  invoiced  from  Germany  at  a hundred  marks  on  one  day  may 
be  honestly  invoiced  by  another  importer  at  ninety  marks  the  next  day. 
The  prices  that  prevailed  yesterday  may  be  lowered  twenty  per  cent, 
to-day,  and  by  reason  of  any  one  of  a hundred  causes  advanced  to-mor- 
row. The  cost  of  labor,  business  competition,  and,  greatest  of  all, 
fashion,  will  always  tend  to  produce  quick  and  violent  fluctuations  in 
the  prices  of  goods,  that  our  appraisers,  three  thousand  miles  away 
from  the  European  manufacturers,  will  strive  in  vain  to  follow.  The 
ever-shifting  condition  of  the  foreign  markets  gives  the  dishonest  im- 
porter the  opportunity  for  undervaluation  that  he  covets,  and  the  ad- 
vantage thus  gained  over  honest  competition  often  enables  him  to  mo- 
nopolize the  importation  of  several  branches  of  goods  so  completely  that 
at  last  his  false  invoices  are  the  only  standard  of  value  known  to  the 
Government. 

Should  his  dishonesty  arouse  suspicion,  he  will  at  once  seek  to  stifle 
it  by  bribing  the  Government  officers. 

An  old  and  reputable  custom  -house  broker,  who  has  had  a great  deal  of 
experience  with  the  New  York  custom-house,  tells  me  that  appraisers 
who  could  not  be  influenced  by  bribery  have  been  the  exception  there. 

But,  supposing  that  all  the  importers  are  honest  and  that  the  invoices 
fairly  represent  the  cost  of  the  goods  imported,  yet  there  are  great  in- 
equalities and  discrepancies  in  them,  and  the  poorly-equipped  mercan- 
tile house,  in  consequence  of  the  higher  prices  it  has  been  charged,  is, 
under  the  ad  valorem  system,  compelled  to  pay  more  than  its  propor- 
tion of  duties. 

One  merchant  is  charged  50  per  cent,  duty  on  a piece  of  goods  that 
cost  him  £50,  while  his  more  fortunate  competitor,  who  made  a better 
purchase,  pays  duty  on  a similar  piece  on  the  basis  of  £45. 

The  wealthy  importer,  with  a large  outlet  for  his  goods,  goes  to ‘some 
of  the  foreign  factories  and  takes  their  entire  product  for  a season,  and 
gets  much  lower  prices  than  his  struggling  competitor,  and  the  Govern- 
ment practically  supplements  his  advantages  by  its  adherence  to  the 
ad  valorem  system. 

If,  in  levying  our  internal  tax  on  whisky,  we  adopted  the  ad  valorem 
plan,  the  badly-equipped  distillery,  least  able  to  bear  the  tax,  would  sus- 
tain the  largest  proportion  of  it  So  with  the  importation  of  kid  gloves, 
silks,  woolens,  and  many  other  articles  paying  high  duty,  the  poorly 
circumstanced  buyer  is,  by  reason  of  the  high  prices  which  manufact- 
urers require  from  him,  forced  to  pay  a larger  proportional  duty  to  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  67 

Government  under  the  ad  valorem  or  cost  plan  than  his  more  favored 
competitors,  who  are  enabled  to  buy  on  better  terms. 

In  regard  to  the  question  as  to  how  the  specific  duties  should  be  levied 
in  my  line  of  business,  and  what  revenue  would  then  be  derived  there- 
from, I beg  to  state  that  more  time  and  statistics  are  required  to  prop- 
erly answer  it  than  I at  present  command. 

A uniform  duty  of  75  cents  a dozen  on  cotton  hosiery,  $1  a dozen  on 
merino,  $1.25  a dozen  on  woolen,  and  $2  a dozen  on  silken  would  per- 
haps yield  as  much  as  the  present  duties  of  40  and  50  per  cent.,  re- 
spectively, on  hosiery  made  of  cotton  and  silk.  On  gloves  the  duties 
could  be  similarly  arranged  ; kid  gloves  could  be  charged  at  $3  a dozen, 
those  of  cotton  at  75  cents  a dozen,  silk  at  $1.50,  and  so  on.  If  desira- 
ble, more  distinctions  could  be  made,  and  sizes,  weight,  and  quality  could 
berated.  Thread  gloves  undertwenty-gaugecouldpay  40  cents  a dozen, 
those  under  forty  gauge,  60  cents  a dozen,  &c. 

Hamburg  embroideries,  manufactured  at  St.  Gall,  have  given  the 
Hew  York  appraisers  a great  deal  of  trouble.  Undervaluations  in  these 
articles  of  fleeting  value  are  said  to  be  the  rule  and  honest  invoices  the 
exception.  The  chief  guide  of  the  appraiser  in  estimating  their  cost  is 
by  finding  the  number  of  threads  to  the  square  inch,  and  then  ascer- 
taining the  wages  paid  for  such  labor,  the  price  paid  at  Manchester  for 
the  material,  and  the  cost  of  finishing,  &c.  Duties  on  these  goods 
should  be  levied  at  so  much  per  yard  and  so  much  per  hundred  threads 
or  stitches  to  the  square  inch.  Linen  thread  is  imported  in  an  unfin- 
ished state,  “ in  the  gray,”  so  that  the  appraisers  find  it  next  to  impos- 
sible to  accurately  distinguish  the  different  qualities.  It  should  be 
taxed  by  the  pound,  and  not  by  the  cost;  spool-cotton  at  50  cents  a 
pound  and  7 cents  per  dozen  of  one  hundred  yards ; yarns  by  the 
“ numbers”  or  fineness,  the  material,  and  the  weight;  silk  yarns  of  a 
certain  fineness,  measuring  so  many  yards  to  the  ounce,  at,  say,  $2  a 
pound,  and  so  on ; dyed  yarns  might  be  charged  at  10  cents  a pound 
more  than  white  or  gray;  buttons  might  be  rated  according  to  the  ma- 
terial and  the  “lignes”  or  sizes;  cotton  corsets  at  $2  a dozen;  silk  cor- 
sets at  $3  a dozen.  Corsets  are  imported  from  the  vicinity  of  Stuttgardt 
by  three  or  four  German  houses  that  are  interested  in  their  manufacture. 
They  control  the  business  and  make  most  of  their  styles  exclusively  for 
their  own  importations,  and  the  appraisers  are  to  a great  extent  power- 
less to  detect  undervaluations. 

The  American  manufacturer  seeks  “protection”  because  he  pays  higher 
wages  than  his  foreign  competitors.  So  long  as  he  continues  to  pay 
high  wages  he  is  best  adapted  to  making  the  lower  grades  of  goods,  in 
which  the  material  forms  a large  portion  of  the  cost  and  the  labor  is 
comparatively  small.  The  tendency  of  a specific  duty  would  be  to  give 
him  protection  where  he  most  needs  it,  in  the  manufacture  of  the  cheaper 
class  of  wares. 

If  at  any  future  time  you  would  wish  to  have  my  views  more  in  detail 
on  any  article  or  articles  in  my  line  of  business,  it  would  give  me  great 
pleasure  to  answer  you  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

You  may  use  this  communication  in  any  way  you  deem  advisable. 

I have  the  honor  to  be  yours,  very  truly, 

JAMES  F.  SULLIYAH. 


68 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[Coleman,  Mead  & Co.,  hosiery."] 


Hon.  Daniel  Manning. 


Boston,  August  4, 1885. 


Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  29th  July,  oiw  importations  are  chiefly 
hosiery  and  fabric  gloves  from  Chemnitz,  Saxony. 

No  fair  specific  duty  could  be  imposed.  The  goods  cost  from  3 marks 
to  20  marks  per  dozen,  and  a duty  of  35  cents  per  dozen  would  be  alto- 
gether too  much  on  goods  under  5 marks,  while  it  would  be  small  on 
goods  over  12  marks. 

We  have  been  well  satisfied  that  some  houses,  having  agents  in 
Chemnitz  all  the  time,  had  goods  invoiced  too  low,  but  there  has  not 
been  enough  of  this  to  really  damage  our  business. 

The  last  consul  at  Chemnitz,  Mr.  Parish,  was  well  informed  as  to  which 
invoices  required  special  scrutiny,  &nd  was,  we  are  told,  very  active  in 
trying  to  have  all  goods  invoiced  fairly.  It  is  important  to  importers 
in  our  line  that  his  successor  should  do  as  well. 

Yours,  respectfully," 

COLEMAN,  MEAD  & CO. 


Richard  Y.  Cook,  silks,  kid  gloves.  ] 


Philadelphia,  June  27, 1885. 


Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , 1).  G. 
Dear  Sir  : 


####### 

Your  proposed  reforms  will  doubtless  check  an  existing  evil  and  lop 
off  its  fraudulent  growths,  but  your  commanding  position  should  enable 
you  to  so  direct  legislation  as  to  remove  the  causes  of  these  frauds.  In 
the  eye  of  the  law  all  are  supposed  equal.  Then  why  not  in  customs 
laws  % Why  should  the  market  value  for  duty  be  anything  but  the 
highest  price  at  which  the  maker  has  sold  similar  goods  within  a year  ? 
Forty  per  cent,  duty  should  mean  the  same  for  the  smallest  as  for  the 
largest  importer.  The  law  is  no  hardship.  It  is  only  its  unequal  oper- 
ation that  is  oppressive. 

(2)  Why  should  the  United  States  allow  branch  Paris,  Berlin,  and 
London  houses  to  invoice  goods  to  their  home  houses  in  New  York, 
Boston,  Philadelphia,  &C.1?  These  agencies  have  the  original  invoices 
for  all  purchases.  Why  should  they  keep  these  originals  and  give  the 
United  States  the  copies  ? Let  the  Government  insist  upon  original  in- 
voices to  which  shall  be  attached  the  oaths  of  the  actual  sellers  of  the 
goods,  and  decline  the  voluminous  copies  and  oaths  of  an  irresponsible 
clerk,  often  occupying  in  the  cities  named  fourth -floor  rooms  of  the 
smallest  dimensions. 

(3)  Why  should  there  not  be  a discriminating  duty  levied  against 
consigned  goods  ? Consigned  goods  have  driven  American  importers 
out  of  three  lines  of  goods,  silks,  kid  gloves,  and  the  products  of  St.  Gall 
(Hamburg's,  edgings,  &c.).  Consignments  are  the  prolific  parents  of  the 
frauds  perpetrated  at  present  on  the  revenue. 

I am  necessarily  brief  because  your  time  I know  to  be  fully  occupied. 
Will  you  not  exert  your  influence  to  rescue  an  honorable  business  from 
the  dishonorable  practices  into  which  it  has  fallen — practices  only 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


69 


profitable  to  those  who  use  them  because  men  of  honor  and  conscience 
decline  a competition  so  steeped  in  immorality  ? If  something  is  not 
done,  and  soon,  I myself  see  in  the  near  future  the  time  when  the  whole 
foreign  business  of  the  country  shall  be  in  alien  and  dishonest  hands. 

I am,  sir,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

RIOHD.  Y.  COOK, 

Of  Cook  & Brother , Importers  of  Hosiery  Goods. 


[F.  Siegel  & Brothers,  made  up  garments.  ] 

Chicago,  July  31,  1885. 

Hon.  D.  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  We  possess  your  circular  letter  of  27th  instant,  in  answer  to 
which  we  wish  to  state  that  our  experience  in  importing  goods,  com- 
pared with  other  houses,  has  been  very  limited,  and  we  are  hardly  in 
a position  to  make  any  suggestions. 

We  have  been  importing  chiefly  made-up  garments  for  ladies’,  misses’, 
and  children’s  wear,  and  encountered  one  very  serious  obstacle  to  com- 
pete with  the  Kew  York  concerns.  They  are  mostly  branches  of  the 
German  houses,  and  established  principally  for  the  purpose  of  evading 
paying  such  rates  of  duty  as  we  and  other  importers  have  to  pay.  Under 
the  existing  laws  the  German  houses  can  ship  their  goods  to  their 
branches  in  New  York  at  cost  of  manufacture,  but  they  invoice  them 
way  below  cost,  through  which  they  are  at  a great  advantage. 

Specific  duty  may  help  to  a certain  extent,  although  ad  valorem  rates 
are  the  only  correct  ones,  providing  ways  and  means  can  be  found  to 
prevent  undervaluation.  As  said  before,  the  little  experience  we  have 
had  prevents  us  from  expressing  any  opinion  what  these  ways  and 
means  should  be. 

If  we  are  correctly  informed,  an  affidavit  made  before  a consul  to  a 
consular  invoice,  even  if  proven  to  be  falsified  as  to  prices,  terms,  &c., 
involves  no  responsibility,  and  the  maker  cannot  be  prosecuted.  This 
should  be  changed,  and  we  believe  it  would  be  a material  point  towards 
reform. 

Believe  us  to  be  yours,  most  respectfully, 

F.  SIEGEL  & BROS. 


[William  A.  Reilly,  cloaks,  #c.] 

New  York,  August  22,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Washington , D.  C.  : 

Dear  Sir  : I beg  to  offer  some  suggestions  in  response  to  your  recent 
circular  bearing  upon  the  tariff.  Having  been  closely  associated  in  the 
exertion  to  advance  the  duty  on  imported  cloaks  during  the  last  session 
of  Congress,  many  interesting  points  came  under  my  observation,  which 
may  be  of  value  to  the  general  tariff  question. 

We  sought  to  have  the  duty  advanced  on  cloaks  because  the  foreign 
article  was  sold  cheaper  in  this  market  than  the  same  garments  made 
from  the  identical  foreign  cloth  would  cost  the  manufacturer  when  made 


70 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


here.  A careful  analysis  of  the  question  showed  that  the  labor  in  gar* 
ment-making  was  too  cheap  in  Germany,  against  which  and  in  protec- 
tion of  home  industry  there  was  no  adequate  tariff;  we  paid  here  $1.50 
to  make  the  same  garment  that  the  workers  in  Berlin  would  receive 
only  1 mark,  or  25  cents  each ; and,  again,  the  valuation  of  garments  as 
invoiced  to  agents  in  this  market  was  based  upon  the  simple  value  of 
the  materials  which  went  into  their  manufacture;  and  there  being  a 
large  reduction  in  weight  by  cuttings  or  waste,  the  actual  tariff  was  less 
than  on  the  uncut  materials. 

Merchants  have  not  been  slow  to  see  this,  and  their  factories  are  now 
being  established  in  Berlin,  thus  taking  away  from  our  shores  the  actual 
means  of  subsistence  of  thousands  of  families,  principally  the  poor. 
The  report  of  the  progress  of  these  affairs  may  be  found  in  the  record 
of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  of  the  second  session  of  the  last 
Congress,  and  in  the  hearing  given  our  committee  one  very  vital  ques- 
tion was  asked,  and  one  upon  which  much  weight  will  rest  in  future 
tariff  discussions.  It  was  this : u If  a foreign  cloak  can  be  sold,  say,  at 
$1.50  each  less  than  the  identical  article  can  be  sold  when  made  here, 
are  we  not  forcing  the  greater  portion  of  those  who  wear  cloaks  to  pay 
$1.50  too  much  for  them  V7  This  question  can  be  shaped  so  as  to  apply 
to  the  production  of  every  industry  in  the  land,  and  it  must  be  answered 
clearly  and  unequivocally  in  order  to  justify  our  claim  for  a higher  tariff. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  strongest  argument  in  support  of  our  claim  is 
that  the  Government  should  give  every  inducement  reasonable  to  man- 
ufacturers to  produce  their  goods  in  the  United  States  in  order  that  the 
employment  attendant  may  be  given  to  the  people  who  live  and  spend 
their  earnings  here.  Our  first  great  duty,  it  seems  to  me,  is  to  shape 
the  tariff  in  such  a manner  as  will  secure  the  continuance  of  the  present 
fair  standard  of  wages  and  yet  allow  no  oppression  of  the  manufact- 
urer or  loop-hole  for  speculation  upon  the  unfortunate  condition  of  ill- 
paid  labor  of  foreign  countries. 

I do  not  urge  protection  in  the  broad  sense  of  the  term,  but  I firmly 
believe  in  that  incidental  protection  which  will  keep  our  industries  in 
healthy  operation,  thus  giving  to  the  masses  lucrative  employment.  I 
have  no  fear  of  the  offense  it  may  give  to  foreign  countries  by  these  pro- 
tective measures.  What  I do  fear  is  scarcity  of  employment  and  low 
wages,  which  must  ultimately  breed  discontent  and  its  consequences. 
I have  no  sympathy  with  the  prevailing  passion  for  foreign  goods,  born 
of  the  mimicry  of  foreign  customs ; nor  can  I see  any  weight  in  the  ar- 
gument that  trade  is  enlivened  or  our  people  benefited  by  the  purchases 
in  other  countries  of  articles  produced  at  home,  thinking  it  will  create 
a demand  for  American  commodities.  Conquest  of  trade  and  commerce 
are,  in  my  mind,  like  conquests  of  armies,  disastrous  to  the  common 
people  without  any  permanent  good.  Many  nations  to-day  pride  them- 
selves in  penetrating  the  uttermost  points  of  the  earth  in  search  of  trade, 
offering  every  sacrifice  of  the  interests  of  labor  to  secure  it,  and  the 
wretched,  hopeless  life  lived  by  their  laboring  classes  tell  the  sorrowing 
tale  of  results.  While  national  wealth  may  come  into  the  control  of 
comparative  few  from  these  conquests,  the  many  end  their  days  in  a 
public  charity.  Let  us  guard  against  such  misfortune  in  America. 

It  seems  strange  to  me  that  tradesmen  do  not  realize  the  fact  that 
every  dollar  paid  for  a foreign  production  is  money  lost  to  themselves, 
because  if  paid  out  here  it  adds  to  the  general  prosperity,  and  directly 
or  indirectly  comes  back  to  themselves  in  some  form ; hence,  if  we  take 
the  bold,  independent  stand  to  protect  American  industries,  and  con- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  71 

sequently  American  labor,  we  will  have  done  the  first  and  highest  duty 
to  ourselves. 

The  question  of  free  raw  material  will  now  be  put  forth  as  a remedy, 
and  upon  this  question  the  wisdom  of  Congress  will  doubtless  be  tried. 
As  the  material  which  goes  into  the  manufacture  of  garments  is  already 
a manufactured  article,  such  action  would  have  no  direct  effect  upon 
the  trade;  but  if  they  are  made  in  foreign  countries  there  is  certainly 
only  foreign  materials  used,  and  hence  another  great  loss  to  American 
industry,  as  many  a silent  woolen  mill  fully  proves.  You  will  there- 
fore see  that  there  must  be  a distinct  action  in  the  matter  of  garment- 
making  in  order  to  save  it  to  our  shores,  where  it  naturally  belongs. 

In  the  matter  of  raw  material  being  allowed  to  pass  free  of  customs, 
there  is  a very  fine  question  to  be  decided,  and  that  is,  do  importers 
gain  advantage  over  the  domestic  article  in  the  cheapness  of  labor  em- 
ployed in  the  preparation  of  such  raw  material  for  shipment?  If  so,  a 
tariff  should  be  imposed,  so  that  the  discrepancy  shall  be  covered;  for 
instance,  in  the  taking  of  ore  from  the  mines.  If  the  foreign  article  is 
prepared  by  pauper,  convict,  or  slave  labor  it  is  not  just  to  the  Amer- 
ican producer  to  pay  honest  wages  and  compete  at  such  disadvantage. 
So  it  can  be  said  of  cotton  growers  and  shippers,  and  hence  these  fine 
points  of  discrimination  to  be  considered. 

In  conclusion,  I would  say  that  it  is  with  no  blind  enthusiasm  that  I 
call  to  your  attention  the  necessity  of  keeping  constantly  in  view  the 
general  protection  of  American  industries  and  labor.  It  is  after  mature 
study  the  deep  conviction  comes  to  me  that  the  whole  fabric  of  trade 
and  commerce  depends  for  its  life  and  healthy  existence  upon  perma- 
nently employed  and  well-paid  labor.  Yet  how  can  such  be  the  case  if 
foreign  nations  grow  our  wool,  spin  our  yarn,  weave  our  cloth,  and 
make  our  garments — in  fact,  prepare  every  necessity  of  life  for  our  con- 
sumption. It  is  here  in  the  labor  field  where  the  little  rivulets  are 
formed  that  feed  the  great  rivers  of  trade  and  finally  flow  into  the  cen- 
tral oceans  of  commerce. 

If  the  Democratic  party  will  now  assume  to  direct  its  administration 
so  as  to  secure  protection  against  just  such  evils  as  I have  suggested  in 
the  tariff,  they  will  take  up  what  has  been  falsely  claimed  as  a preroga- 
tive of  their  predecessors  in  power.  The  tariff  was  a product  of  neces- 
sity in  trying  times  of  war.  If  carefully  applied  it  can  be  made  the 
source  of  great  good  for  millions  of  frugal  homes ; as  it  exists,  it  is  an 
injury  in  very  many  cases.  The  Republican  party  neglected  it,  and  now 
it  is  the  heritage  of  the  present  administration  to  prove  itself  the  tried 
and  trusted  friend  of  the  people.  In  the  matter  of  the  cloak  trade  and 
industry  is  not  our  only  danger,  but  every  class  of  made-up  garments  for 
men  and  women  is  liable  to  be  made  for  us  by  foreign  labor,  if  left  un- 
protected. 

In  writing  you  this  letter  I beg  to  say  that  I represent  no  organiza- 
tion, nor  can  I say  that  I represent  the  clear  ideas  of  business  men,  but 
simply  my  own  opinion,  based  upon  personal  investigation  and  ultimate 
conviction.  I trust,  however,  it  may  have  some  weight  in  your  future 
recommendations  to  Congress. 

Very  respectfully  submitted. 


WM.  A.  REILLY. 


72  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

[Mayer,  Strouse  & Co.,  corsets.'] 

New  York,  July  22,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.  : 

Dear  Sir:  We  are  extensively  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  cor- 
sets and  corset  clasps,  giving  employment  to  about  1,500  hands  and 
producing  500  dozen  corsets  per  day  aud  200  gross  clasps. 

Noticing  in  the  paper  your  circular  letter  regarding  tariff,  we  beg  to 
state — 

(1)  Cotton  lace  used  to  trim  corsets  with,  being  an  inch  to  an  inch 
and  a half  wide,  paid  a duty  of  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  Tariff 
Commission  of  a few  years  ago,  instead  of  lowering  the  duty,  advanced 
the  same  10  per  cent.,  and  the  duty  to-day  stands  45  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem. We  have  excellent  connections  in  Nottingham,  where  the  same 
are  manufactured,  and  paying  cash  for  all  we  buy,  but  we -find  that  we 
cannot  import  the  goods  as  cheap  as  the  importers  offer  the  same  in 
this  market.  The  reason,  in  our  opinion,  is  this,  that  when  one  of  our 
partners  was  in  Nottingham  two  years  ago  he  found  the  u streets,”  as  he 
expressed  himself,  as  if  he  was  in  New  York.  Every  importer  here  has 
an  office  there  under  the  same  name,  and  they  are  bought  there  and 
billed  (so  we  presume)  by  the  Nottingham  house  to  the  New  York 
house  cheaper  than  the  real  value  of  the  goods.  We  think  there 
should  be  a specific  duty  on  these  goods.  Not  a gross  is  manufactured 
in  this  country,  nor  could  be  manufactured  for  any  such  money  as  these 
Nottingham  people  can  produce  the  same. 

Hence  the  duty  should  be  lower,  because  no  corset  can  be  manufact- 
ured in  this  country  without  these  laces  are  attached  to  the  corset,  in 
order  to  compete  with  the  German  and  French  goods. 

We  also  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  duty  on  steels.  We  buy  in 
Sheffield  u cold-rolled  steels cut  into  width  of  3 to  4 inches.  This  steel 
is  produced  and  costs  to  lay  down  in  New  York,  freight  and  all  ex- 
penses added,  about  4 to  4J  cents.  The  duty  which  the  Government 
exacts  is  2J  cents  per  pound,  almost  50  per  cent.  No  such  steels  can  be 
manufactured  at  any  such  price  in  this  country. 

There  are  about  600  gross  manufactured  daily  in  this  country  by  about 
five  firms,  and  almost  every  pound  of  steel  is  imported  for  that  purpose. 
We  respectfully  submit  that  this  duty  is  too  high,  increases  the  cost  of 
the  steel  and  the  cost  of  the  corset. 

These  facts  are  respectfully  submitted  by 

MAYER,  STROUSE  & CO. 


[The  same.] 

New  York,  October  20,  1S85. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  favor  of  the  26th  ultimo  we  respectfully 
submit : The  present  tariff  calls  for  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  corsets. 
This  article  is  made  of  satteen,  silk,  coutil,  or  jean,  all  of  which  pay 
from  35  to  60  per  cent.;  but  even  conceding  that  all  pay  only  35  per 
cent.,  and  the  manufactured  article,  with  the  labor  added,  pays  35  per 
cent.,  where  is  the  protection  for  labor  ? The  other  articles  used  in 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


73 


the  manufacture  of  corsets  are  steels  or  busks,  which  are  manufactured 
out  of  cold-rolled  steel  which  is  manufactured  in  Sheffield.  This  article- 
pays  a specific  duty  of  2J  cents  per  pound.  The  value  of  this  steel 
laid  down  in  New  York  is  about  4 cents,  and  this  article  pays  more  than 
50  per  cent.  duty. 

Laces  used  in  corsets  we  have  to  pay  40  per  cent,  duty,  &c.,  and 
there  is  not  an  article  which  is  the  component  part  of  a vorset  which 
does  not  pay  from  35  per  cent.  up.  Now,  why  should  the  manufactured 
article  come  in  at  35  per  cent.  ? Where  is  our  protection  for  labor  ? In 
our  humble  opinion  the  specific  duty  on  corsets  should  be  $2  per  dozen 
if  valued  at  $6  or  under,  and  above  that  it  should  be  35  per  cent.,  pro- 
vided the  articles  which  are  the  component  parts  of  the  corset  could  be 
reduced  10  per  cent.  If  this  would  be  practicable,  then  labor  would  be 
protected  to  the  extent  of  10  per  cent.,  which  we  believe  is  in  harmony 
with  Democratic  principles. 

Yours,  truly, 

MAYER,  STROUSE  & CO. 


[The  same.] 

New  York,  October  20, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  yours  of  the  17th,  we  beg  to  ask  you  to  make 
the  following  correction  in  our  letter  of  July  22:  First,  cotton  lace: 
the  duty  is  but  40  per  cent,  instead  of  45  per  cent.  After  making  this 
correction  you  are  at  liberty  to  use  pur  letter  at  your  own  discretion. 
Yours,  truly, 

MAYER,  STROUSE  & CO. 


[Warner  Brothers,  corsets .] 

New  York,  September  14,  1885. 

Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : In  response  to  your  circular  letter  of  July  25  we  will  offer 
a few  facts  and  suggestions  relative  to  the  duty  on  sewed  corsets,  which 
will  embrace  our  observations  and  experience.  In  addition  to  our  ex- 
perience as  manufacturers  of  corsets  we  are  also  quite  extensive  import- 
ers of  corsets  and  corset  materials. 

Our  factory  is  located  at  Bridgeport,  Conn.,  where  we  have  the  ad- 
vantage of  an  abundance  of  intelligent  operatives  and  close  proximity 
to  the  metropolis  of  the  nation.  Our  factory  is  537  feet  long  by  40  wide 
and  four  stories  high. 

The  building  and  land  are  worth  $95,000. 

The  machinery  and  fixtures  $55,000. 

Our  sales  for  1884  were  $1,274,000. 

The  capital  used  in  our  business,  including  real  estate  and  machinery, 
is  about  $750,000. 

The  corsets  sold  in  this  country  vary  in  price  from  $4  to  $30  per 
dozen,  besides  a limited  number  of  silk  corsets  at  $50  to  $00  per  dozen. 


74  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Mne-tentlis  of  the  domestic  corsets  made  are  sold  at  prices  not  exceed- 
ing $12  per  dozen,  while  more  than  four-fifths  of  the  imported  corsets 
are  sold  at  prices  above  $12  per  dozen. 

On  all  the  cheapest  grades  of  corsets  there  is  practically  no  compe- 
tition from  imported  goods.  They  are  made  of  domestic  cotton  jean, 
and  all  of  the  material  is  of  domestic  production  except  the  horn  strips, 
which  are  imported  free  of  duty,  and  the  cotton  lace  (called  Cluny  lace), 
which  is  used  to  trim  the  top  of  the  corset,  and  which  is  imported  from 
Nottingham,  England,  at  a duty  of  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Take  as 
a sample  of  these  corsets  one  which  retails  at  $1  and  which  sells  to  the 
retail  trade  at  $9  per  dozen  and  to  the  wholesale  dealer  at  $7.50  per 
dozen,  and  the  items  of  cost  are  about  as  follows  for  one  dozen  : 

MATERIALS. 


14  yards  cloth,  at  9 cents 

Steels  

Horn 

14  yards  Cluny  lace,  at  2 cents 

Thread 

Lacing,  binding,  eyelets 

Boxes 


$1  26 
35 
1 40 
28 
22 
15 
30 


3 96 


LABOR. 


Stitching .• $1  35 

Hand  labor 37 

1 72 


5 68 

General  expenses,  12  per  cent 67 

Total  cost  of  manufacture 6 35 


In  many  instances  in  place  of  the  horn  strips  a stiffening  cord  is  used, 
which  is  stitched  directly  into  the  corset.  This  increases  the  machine 
work,  and  lessens  to  a like  extent  the  hand  work,  but  does  not  materi- 
ally affect  the  cost  of  the  corset.  The  accompanying  sample  (marked 
u Warner  Bros.,  A”)  is  stiffened  with  a cord  made  of  the  fibers  of  the 
Mexican  istle. 

The  finest  grades  of  corsets  differ  from  the  above  in  being  made  of  a 
fine  grade  of  coutil  or  satteen,  with  finer  trimmings  and  with  more  hand 
work,  especially  the  ornamentation  of  the  corset  with  silk  embroidery 
or  flossing.  The  following  may  be  taken  as  the  cost  of  the  average  cor- 
set of  this  class : 

MATERIALS. 


14  yards  cloth,  at  30  cents $4  20 

Horn 1 40 

Steels  50 

Lace 60 

Thread 20 

Lacing  and  eyelets 12 

Silk 1 00 

Boxes 50 


8 52 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


75 


LABOR. 

|3  75 
2 00 

5 75 


14  27 

General  expenses,  12  per  cent 1 70 

Total  cost  of  manufacture 15  97 

(See  sample  of  imported  corset  marked  u Warner  Bros.,  B ”) 

This  class  of  goods  can  at  present  be  imported  more  cheaply  than 
they  can  be  manufactured  in  this  country,  for  the  following  reasons : 

This  grade  of  cloth  and  lace  are  not  manufactured  in  this  country,  and 
each  is  imported  at  a higher  rate  of  duty  than  that  paid  on  manufact- 
ured corsets.  The  thread  and  silk  are  also  protected  by  a higher  rate 
of  duty  than  that  paid  on  corsets,  and  cost  in  this  market  fully  40  per 
cent,  more  than  in  the  European  market.  The  difference  in  the  cost  of 
labor  and  running  expenses  between  here  and  England  or  France  is 
fully  equal  to  the  35  per  cent.  duty.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  our  pres- 
ent duties  discriminate  against  the  American  manufacturer  to  the  ex- 
tent of  the  amount  of  duty  paid  on  corset  materials  in  excess  of  the  duty 
paid  on  corsets. 

The  corset  trade  of  this  country  would  be  sufficiently  protected  by  a 
duty  of  25  or  30  per  cent.,  provided  that  the  duty  on  material  used  in 
making  corsets  were  reduced  to  the  same  or  a lower  figure.  We  do 
not  need  higher  protection,  but  more  consistent  protection.  Cloth,  lace, 
and  thread  occupy  an  intermediate  position  between  the  raw  materials 
and  goods  manufactured  ready  for  actual  wear,  and  the  duty  on  these 
should  be  less  than  on  manufactured  goods. 

SPECIFIC  OR  AD  VALOREM  DUTIES. 

The  wide  range  in  the  price  of  corsets  renders  it  difficult  to  establish 
equitable  specific  duties.  When,  however,  we  bear  in  mind  that  at  pres- 
ent almost  no  cheap  corsets  are  imported,  the  difficulty  largely  disap- 
pears. For  the  purpose  of  specific  duties,  imported  sewed  corsets  might 
be  divided  into  three  classes,  as  follows : 

First,  those  composed  wholly  of  cotton ; second,  those  composed  of 
cotton  and  silk,  in  which  the  value  of  the  silk  is  less  than  one-half  the 
value  of  all  the  materials  used ; third,  corsets  composed  of  all  silk  or 
cotton  and  silk  in  which  the  value  of  the  silk  is  more  than  one-half  the 
value  of  the  materials  used.  The  duty  on  these  three  styles  might  be 
$2  for  the  first,  $3  for  the  second,  and  $5  for  the  third.  The  third  class 
would  embrace  what  are  known  as  silk  corsets ; that  is,  corsets,  the  en- 
tire face  of  which  are  made  of  silk,  but  lined  with  cotton.  It  is  im- 
portant that  the  distinction  should  be  made  between  the  value  of  the 
silk  and  the  value  of  other  material,  and  not  between  the  value  of  the 
silk  and  value  of  the  finished  corset,  as  in  the  latter  case  the  labor  of 
manufacturing  the  corset  may  be  sufficient  to  grade  even  a silk  corset 
at  the  lower  rate  of  duty. 

If  the  present  ad  valorem  duties  are  to  be  continued,  the  most  impor- 
tant improvement  would  be  to  prohibit  manufacturers  from  consigning 
their  goods  to  agents  on  this  side  at  a lower  dutiable  value  than  the 
same  goods  are  sold  in  open  market.  Two  scales  of  prices  on  which  to 
compute  duties  on  the  same  or  corresponding  articles  is  a great  injustice 
to  all  honest  importers. 


Stitching  .. 
Hand  work 


76 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


We  will  also  suggest  that  the  appraiser  at  all  ports  should  keep  a 
record  of  the  market  rates  at  which  all  articles  which  are  habitually 
imported  are  sold  to  the  trade,  and  when  the  rate  is  above  a reasonable 
profit  on  the  imported  price,  the  case  can  be  investigated. 

We  have  no  knowledge  or  well-grounded  suspicion  of  any  evasion  of 
duty  on  the  part  of  any  corset  importer,  but  there  is  a general  feeling 
of  insecurity  among^all  importers,  or  a fear  that  their  competitors  are 
reaping  an  advantage  over  themselves  by  paying  lower  duties  on  articles 
of  corresponding  value. 

Very  truly, 


WARNER  BROTHERS. 


Note:  Samples  will  be  transmitted  separately  to  Congress. 


[The  Little  Falla  Knitting  Mills  Company,  knit  underwear . ] 

Little  Falls,  N.  Y.,  August  20,  1885. 

Daniel  Manning,  Esq., 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular  of  July  18  duly  received  and  carefully 
noted.  The  Little  Falls  Knitting  Mill  Company  is  engaged  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  knit  underwear  and  of  the  class  known  as  cut  goods  as  dis- 
tinguished from  full  fashioned.  The  writer  is  not  aware  that  the  par- 
ticular branch  of  this  industry  in  which  this  company  is  engaged  suffers 
to  any  great  extent  from  evasions  of  our  present  tariff  laws  by  under- 
valuation. Of  course  other  branches  of  manufacturing  using  wool,  as 
well  as  those  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  woolens,  do  suffer  from 
this  cause,  and  all  must  agree  that  the  adoption  of  specific  duties  only, 
would  serve  in  a measure  to  prevent  evasions  by  undervaluation ; but,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  writer,  what  is  most  needed  to  put  our  manufacturing 
industries  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  woolen  goods,  or  of  goods  com- 
posed wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  of  every  description  upon  solid  ground, 
both  as  regards  our  own  as  well  as  foreign  markets,  is  free  raw  materials. 
Then  with  a system  of  tariff  laws  that  embrace  specific  duties  only,  upon 
the  manufactured  article,  with  the  smallest  duty  upon  such  goods  as 
require  the  least  amount  of  labor,  and  increased  as  the  item  of  labor  in 
the  cost  of  production  increases  in  a given  unit  of  quantity.  This  would 
afford  protection  to  labor  where  it  is  most  needed,  and  at  the  same  time 
enable  our  various  industries  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  goods 
composed  wholly  or  partly  of  wool  to  get  relief  from  overstocked  mar- 
kets at  home,  or  at  least  afford  them  an  opportunity  to  seek  markets 
abroad  for  surplus  products  without  suffering  such  great  losses  as  must 
necessarily  follow  from  being  compelled  to  unload  on  an  overstocked 
market  at  home,  or  meet  competition  abroad  from  competitors  who  en- 
joy their  own  markets  alone  by  reason  of  duties  on  imports  and  at  the 
same  time  have  free  raw  materials.  It  seems  to  me  that  Congress  could 
well  afford  to  undertake  an  investigation  in  the  interest  of  that  large 
class  of  American  labor  employed  in  the  various  manufacturing  indus- 
tries using  wool,  that  would  have  for  its  object  the  benefit  that  would 
accrue  to  them  by  the  adoption  of  such  a policy,  as  against  the  injury 
that  would  be  done  the  other  class  of  our  citizens  engaged  in  the  sheep 
husbandry  or  raising  of  wool. 

Yours,  truly, 

R.  WALRATH, 

President. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


77 


[Tlie  same.  ] 


Little  Falls,  N.  Y.,  October  21,  1885. 

Daniel  Manning,  Esq., 

Secretary : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  valued  favor  of  the  2d  instaut  duly  received  and 
contents  noted.  Replying  to  same  would  say,  should  raw  material  be 
admitted  free,  the  following  rates  of  specific  duty  levied  upon  the  value 
of  knit  underwear  at  port  of  shipment  would  be  sufficient : 

Cents  per  pound. 


Valued  at  30  cents  per  pound  or  less 10 

Valued  above  30  cents  and  not  exceeding  40  cents 12 

Valued  above  40  cents  and  not  exceeding  50  cents 15 

Valued  above  50  cents  and  not  exceeding  60  cents 20 

Valued  above  60  cents  and  not  exceeding  70  cents 25 

Valued  above  70  cents  and  not  exceeding  80  cents 30 

Valued  above  80  cents  per  pound 35 


With  material  subject  to  existing  rates  of  duty  the  above  rates  should 
be  double  in  each  instance. 


Respectfully,  yours, 


R.  WALRATH, 

President. 


[William  Russell,  scotch  caps.  ] 

Yineland,  N.  J.,  July  24,  1885. 

Hon.  Secretary  Manning, 

Washington , D.  C : 

Dear  Sir  : I have  been  told  that  you  have  issued  a circular  recently 
soliciting  information  on  certain  points. 

I will  feel  obliged  if  you  will  let  me  have  a copy  of  said  circular.  Our 
trade  has  been  subjected  to  a very  severe  strain  through  undervaluations 
for  the  last  two  years.  The  New  York  Herald  of  Saturday,  June  20,  had 
a few  items  exposing  late  administration  doings  in  Scotch  caps,  but  might 
have  said  much  more. 

Yery  respectfully,  yours, 

WM,  RUSSELL. 


Yineland,  N.  J.,  October  23,  1885. 


Hon.  D.  Manning, 

Secretary  of  U.  S.  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 


Dear  Sir  : I am  favored  with  yours  of  the  17th  instant,  and  beg  to 
hand  you  a sample  Scotch  cap  made  as  caps  are  in  Scotland,  with  the 
relative  costs  of  producing  the  same  in  this  country  and  Scotland ; also 
a little  sketch  of  facts  connected  with  the  trade,  &c.,  which  you  are  at 
liberty  to  make  any  use  of  you  may  deem  proper.  If  I am  misunder- 
stood in  any  point,  I shall  be  glad  to  answer. 

Yery  respectfully,  yours. 

WM.  RUSSELL. 


78 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


When  I came  to  this  country  I brought  over  with  me  twenty-seven 
male  and  female  help,  who  were  all  in  my  employ  in  Scotland  for  years 
prior,  but  since  July,  1883, 1 have  been  unable  to  keep  them.  The  im- 
ported goods  come  in  so  low  that  it  is  quite  impossible  to  compete  with 
the  same  quality  of  goods. 

W.  E. 

Scotch  caps  prior  to  1st  of  July,  1883,  paid  a duty  of  35  per  cent,  and  50  cents  per 
pound,  but  the  new  tariff  law  of  1883  reduced  the  50  cents  per  pound  duty  to  35  cents 
per  pound,  hut  importers,  therefore,  got  their  goods  so  invoiced  that  they  appeared 
to  be  valued  under  80  cents  per  pound.  Thus,  with  the  assistance  of  Appraiser 
Ketchum  and  Assistant  Appraiser  Aurbach,  these  officers  lowered  the  old  standard 
value  of  Scotch  caps,  so  as  to  let  importers  pass  them  through  the  custom-house  at 
a still  further  reduction  of  11  cents  per  pound,  making  the  standard  duty  paid  on  caps 
for  the  last  two  years  to  be  35  per  cent,  and  24  cents  per  pound,  although  it  is  a well- 
known,  fact  that  no  goods  can  be  made  in  Scotland  to  come  at  a value  of  under  80 
cents  per  pound. 

Scotch  caps  are  knitted,  and  are  therefore  classed  amongst  goods  which  are  finished 
with  a fractional  part  of  the  labor  that  is  bestowed  on  Scotch  caps,  and  as  each  cap 
is  finished  as  a separate  piece  of  cloth,  knitted  by  itself  and  dressed  separately — then 
each  cap  has  to  be  lined,  bound,  and  finished  separately  as  any  other  caps  made  from 
cloth. 

I would  therefore  recommend  that  Scotch  caps  be  taken  from  the  knitted  goods 
and  classed  amongst  clothing,  and  made  to  read  “Scotch  caps,  whether  knitted  or 
woven,  to  be  classed  as  clothing.” 

The  importers  have  had  these  goods  regularly  undervalued  in  invoices  since  July 
1883,  and  the  domestic  manuacturers  have  since  then  been  forced  to  sell,  in  my  case, 
under  cost  to  compete  with  this  undervaluation. 

The  domestic  manufacturers  petitioned  the  custom-house  to  make  inquiry  as  to 
the  value  of  the  goods  before  reducing  the  value  from  above  80  cents  per  pound  to 
under  80  cents,  and  thereby  reducing  the  duty  11  cents  per  pound.  But  P.  Aur- 
bach, after  promising  a reappraisement  in  July,  1883,  lowered  the  valuation  within 
a few  days  without  giving  any  reappraisement  or  waiting  on  Mr.  Tichnor’s  report.  The 
Scotch  cap  manufacturers  then  sent  a petition  to  the  Treasury  praying  for  an  in- 
quiry. But  P.  Aurbach,  with  the  assistance  of  Appraiser  Ketchum,  so  manipulated 
things  to  suit  themselves  that  no  redress  could  be  had.  So  we  have  been  fighting  on 
with  the  trade,  giving  us  no  profit,  as  the  importers  are  able  to  undersell  us  from  this 
undervaluation. 

Truly,  yours, 

WILLIAM  RUSSELL. 


Cost  of  producing  Scotch  caps,  as  sample. 
IN  UNITED  STATES. 


1.  Sample  Scotch  caps. 

2.  Cost  of  material  for  1 dozen  each  as  sample  : 


2£  yards  black  silesia,  9 cents 22* 

1*  yards  burlap,  15  cents 19 

Binding,  12  cents;  visors,  10  cents;  elastic,  4 cents;  thread,  3 cents.  29 

$2  50* 

B.  Knitting,  50  cents ; milling  and  blocking,  25  cents 75 

Dressing,  25  cents ; cutting  linings,  making  and  putting  into  caps,  22 

cents 47 

Ironing  in  shell  and  finished,  10  cents  ; topping,  4 cents 14 

Binding,  4 cents ; sizing,  picking,  folding,  and  packing  into  dozens, 

10  cents 14 

1 50 

C.  Coal  per  week,  $10 ; engineer,  $10  ; calculated  on  100  dozen  per  week 22 

D.  Interest  on  machinery  and  factory  as  rent 5 

3.  Frame  building,  25  by  65,  two  flats;  engine-room,  40  by  20,  valued 

$1,500;  special  knitting  machinery,  valued  $5,000. 

Paper,  cord,  tape,  and  portion  of  25  dozen  wood  case 7 


4 32* 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  79 

IN  SCOTLAND. 

2 pounds  of  yam  made  from  African  wool,  52  cents $1  04 

yards  black  silesia,  7 cents 17£ 

1£  yards  burlap,  9 cents 11 

Binding,  7 cents;  visors,  5 cents ; elastic,  2 cents  ; thread,  2 cents 16 

$1  48| 

Knitting,  25  cents ; milling  and  blocking,  15  cents 40 

Dressing,  10  cents ; cutting  linings,  making  and  putting  into  caps,  12 

cents 22 

Ironing  in  shell  and  finished,  5 cents  : topping,  2 cents 7 

Binding,  2 cents  ; sizing,  picking,  folding,  and  packing,  5 cents 7 

76 

Engine  cost  per  week,  $1.50 ; engineer,  $4.50 ; calculated  on  100  dozen  per  week.  6 

Paper,  cord,  tape,  and  portion  of  25  dozen  wood  case 5 


2 35£ 

Note : Samples  will  be  transmitted  separately  to  Gonyress. 


[The  Arkwright  Club,  cotton  manufactures.'] 

Boston,  September  14, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Sir:  In  reply  to  yonr  circular  of  July  31  (which  is  understood  to 
take  the  place  of  that  of  the  17th),  received  by  various  members  of  the 
Arkwright  Club,  an  association  chiefly  representing  the  cotton  manu- 
facturing industry  centering  in  Boston,  and  confining  the  following  to 
cotton  cloth,  brown,  bleached,  dyed,  and  printed,  your  attention  is  asked 
to  the  accompanying  printed  statement,  giving  the  rates  of  customs 
duties  of  the  act  of  1861,  the  rates  proposed  by  the  Tariff  Committee  of 
1883,  the  act  of  1883  now  in  force,  and  the  per  centum  of  reduction  in 
duties  due  to  the  latter  law. 

This  sheet  was  prepared  for  the  information  of  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means  of  the  last  Congress,  whose  attention  was  called  to  the  fact 
that  the  act  of  1883  had  hot  only  largely  reduced  the  rates  of  customs 
duties  on  nearly  all  classes  of  cotton  fabrics,  but  had  also  simplified  the 
tariff*  by  practically  eliminating  the  ad  valorem  duties,  preserving  the 
specific  form  based  upon  the  scientific  method  of  fixing  the  character  of 
fabrics.  Under  this  schedule  no  evasion  of  the  strictest  administration 
of  the  tariff  is  possible  for  the  great  majority  of  cotton  fabrics  produced 
abroad  and  in  this  country.  As  to  the  limited  classes  of  fabrics  where 
the  ad  valorem  principle  is  applied,  there  seems  to  be  no  way  of  cover- 
ing them,  excepting  by  carrying  out  the  specific  principle  to  so  elabor- 
ate a degree  that  the  administration  of  the  law  would  become  unduly 
complicated,  and  might  lead  to  even  greater  difficulties  than  now  exist. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

OHAELES  H.  DALTON, 

President. 


80 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 
Duties  on  cotton  goods. 


Act  of  1861. 


Proposed  by 
Tariff  Commis- 
sion, 1883. 


Act  of  1883. 


Per  cent. 

of  re- 
duction. 


CLASS  NO.  733. 


On  all  cotton  clotb  not  exceed- 
ing one  hundred  threads  per 
square  inch,  counting  warp 
and  filling,  not  bleached, 
dyed,  colored,  stained, 
painted,  or  printed. 

Same,  bleached. 

Same,  dyed,  colored,  stained, 
painted,  or  printed. 

CLASS  NO.  734. 


Per  square  yard. 
6 to  6 cents 


Per  square  yard. 
3 cents 


Per  square  yard. 
2£  cents 


to  6£  cents 4 cents 

5£  cents  and  10  per  6 cents, 
cent,  to  6J  cents 
and  10  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 


3^  cents. 
\\  cents. 


55 


42 

30 


On  all  cotton  cloth  exceeding 
one  hundred  and  not  exceed- 
ing two  hundred  threads  per 
square  inch,  counting  warp 
and  filling,  not  bleached, 
dyed,  colored,  stained, 
painted,  or  printed. 

If  bleached 

If  dyed,  colored,  stained, 
painted,  or  printed. 


5 to  6 cents 


5£  to  6£  cents 

5£  cents  and  20  per 
cent,  to  6£  cents 
and  15  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 


3 cents. 


4 cents 
6 cents 


3 cents. 


4 cents 

5 cents 

( See  Proviso  Ho . 1 . ) 


46 


33 

29 


CLASS  NO.  735. 


On  all  cotton  cloth  exceeding 
two  hundred  threads  per 
square  inch,  counting  warp 
and  filling,  not  bleached, 
dyed,  colored,  stained, 
painted,  or  printed. 

If  bleached 

If  dyed,  colored,  stained, 
painted,  or  printed. 


5 to  7 cents 


5£  to  cents 

5|  cents  and  20  per 
cent,  to  1\  cents 
and  15  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 


3 cents 


4 cents 
6 cents. 


4 cents 


5 cents 

6 cents 

(See  Proviso  Ho.  2.) 


33 


23 

25 


PROVISO  NO.  1. 

On  all  cotton  cloth  not  exceed- 
ing two  hundred  threads  per 
square  inch,  counting  warp 
and  filling,  not  bleached, 
dyed,  colored,  stained, 
painted,  or  printed,  valued 
at  over  8 cents  per  square 
yard. 

If  bleached,  at  over  10  cents 
per  square  yard. 

If  dyed,  colored,  stained, 
painted,  or  printed,  at  over 
13  cents  per  square  yard. 

PROVISO  NO.  2. 


Hot  otherwise  pro- 
vided for,  35  per 
cent,  ad  valorem. 


40  per  cent,  ad  val- 
orem. 


On  all  cotton  cloth  over  two 
hundred  threads  per  square 
inch,  not  bleached,  dyed, 
colored,  stained,  painted,  or 
printed,  valued  at  over  10 
cents  per  square  yard. 

If  bleached,  at  over  12  cents 
per  square  yard. 

If  dyed,  colored,  stained, 
painted,  or  printed,  at  over 
15  cents  per  square  yard. 


Valued  at  over 

8 cents 

and . 


At  over  10 

cents 

and . I 

At  over  15  j 
cents,  40  per  I 
cent.advalo- 
j.  rem. 


40  per  cent,  ad  val- 
orem. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


81 


[D.  J.  Johnson,  cotton  manufactures.'] 

Cohoes,  August  31,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir  : Your  circular  letter  in  relation  to  tariff  duties  was  duly  received 
and  carefully  considered.  There  is  no  question  but  that  our  tariff  needs 
revising,  and  should  be  so  done  as  to  give  the  greatest  possible  benefits 
to  all  our  industries,  and  so  adjusted  as  not  to  require  any  great  change 
for  at  least  a decade  thereafter,  for  business  is  disturbed  and  injured 
by  anticipated  often  more  than  by  the  legislation  itself. 

We  want  permanency  so  far  as  possible,  and  then  the  business  in- 
terests of  the  country  will  aaajit  themselves  to  the  surrounding  circum- 
stances very  soon.  Under  the  high  or  war  tariff  and  paper  inflation 
false  values  were  created,  the  profits  from  all  sources  were  apparently 
large,  under  which  influence  many  industries  were  overdone,  and  the 
shrinkage  which  culminated  in  the  panic  of  1873-’74  wiping  out  much 
of  the  pretended  gains,  leaving  many  industries  unprofitable,  and  so 
continued  until  the  railroad  construction  boom  of  1878,  which  set  every- 
thing going,  giving  an  Impetus  to  all  our  industries,  manufactures,  min- 
ing, and  agriculture,  showing  a development  in  five  years  to  1883  unpre- 
cedented in  the  history  of  this  or  any  other  country,  and  then  came  the 
reaction,  which  has  continued  to  the  present  time,  with  closed  mills,  un- 
profitable trade,  and  labor  troubles  in  all  directions,  and  the  man  that 
can  solve  the  problem  how  to  prevent  these  periodical  depressions  will 
be  wise  indeed  and  worthy  of  all  honor. 

A very  high  and  complex  tariff  certainly  does  not  remedy  the  diffi- 
culty, and  from  the  temptation  it  offers  to  dishonesty  does  militate 
against  the  honest  trader  and  manufacturer,  and  is  often  so  constructed 
that  some  industries  are  protected  at  the  expense  of  others  equally 
worthy,  and  when  that  is  the  case  will  prove  in  the  end  to  the  injury  of 
all,  for  such  legislation  can  only  be  temporary. 

The  wonderful  growth  and  development  of  this  country  has  been  in 
our  ability  to  offer  such  inducements  as  to  bring  here  the  -full-grown 
and  able-bodied,  the  artisan,  and  those  that  were  ready  to  take  hold  and 
make  use  of  our  great  natural  resources.  Our  legislation  should  be  so 
directed  as  to  foster  that  spirit  which  will  be  the  greatest  good  to  the 
greatest  number. 

Our  tariff  has  done  this  to  a certain  extent ; but  when  continued  too 
far  will  prove  an  injury  more  than  a benefit.  We  are  now  met  with  the 
other  problem,  how  to  dispose  of  our  surplus  manufactures  which  we 
now  have,  as  we  always  have  had  in  cotton,  and  of  late  years  in  cereals, 
without  a foreign  market  for  which  would  almost  bankrupt  the  farm- 
ing or  agricultural  interests,  and  other  industries  would  be  depressed 
in  proportion. 

The  countries  that  would  take  most  of  our  surplus  manufactures  are 
those  that  have  the  raw  material  that  we  want,  and  there  should  be  as 
free  exchange  as  possible;  but,  owing  to  legislation  that  prevents  a free 
exchange,  the  business  goes  to  other  countries  where  there  are  no 
such  restrictions.  We  have  made  so  great  progress  in  manufacturing 
the  past  few  years,  creating  such  a competition  at  home,  that  many 
kinds  of  standard  goods  are  being  not  only  made  but  sold  as  cheap  as 
in  the  old  countries.  Labor  per  piece  or  per  pound  is  as  low  (and  lower 
in  some  localities)  than  in  Lancashire,  the  great  cotton  spinning  district 
of  England,  notwithstanding  many  of  the  reports  of  consuls  and  others 
S.  Ex.  72 6 


82 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


to  the  contrary,  which  are  made  with  prejudice  and  for  political  effect 
more  than  to  give  correct  information. 

Take  cotton  goods  (the  raw  material  for  which  we  have  in  abundance 
and  for  the  world),  but  little  of  which  we  import,  and  that  only  of  the 
finer  grades  or  quality,  while  we  are  exporting  large  and  increasing 
quantities  of  the  heavier  and  coarser  kinds;  but  a few  years  ago,  with 
much  less  home  demand,  we  could  not  supply  our  own  wants  and  none 
to  spare  for  others.  Those  kinds  of  medium  goods  that  have  yielded 
little  or  no  profit  the  past  two  or  three  years  to  the  manufacturer  are 
prohibited  from  being  imported,  except  at  a loss,  and  thus  have  only 
home  competition  to  contend  with. 

We  need  a duty  on  manufactured  goods,  as  a regulator,  if  no  more, 
and  to  prevent  the  bringing  of  any  large  amount  of  goods  into  our 
market  from  other  countries  in  times  of  depression  there.  Twenty-five 
to  30  per  cent,  should  be  ample  for  this  and  to  give  the  advantage  in 
good  times  to  our  labor. 

Raw  material  should  be  as  free  as  possible ; why  in  this  country  be- 
fore all  others  should  it  want  any  protection,  with  such  an  abundance 
of  cheap  and  fertile  land,  great  forests  of  timber,  mines  of  coal  and  iron 
almost  on  the  surface  of  the  ground,  and  thus  they  can  be  and  are 
made  ready  for  the  market  at  less  cost  than  in  any  other  country,  and, 
as  our  grain  and  cotton  is  cheaper  and  needs  no  protection,  so  should 
all  our  raw  materials  be.  The  manufactured  article  should  be  protected, 
as  the  amount  of  labor  and  extra  incidental  expenses  are  added  to  the 
raw  material,  and  this  would  call  for  an  ad  valorem  rather  than  a spe- 
cific duty,  the  fine  and  more  expensive  goods  paying  (as  they  should  in 
ratio)  the  greater  proportional  duty,  although  with  specific  duty  the 
Government  is  better  able  to  prevent  fraud,  I suppose. 

Raw  material  (cotton)  costs  in  the  manufactured  goods  12  to  13  cents 
per  pound.  Labor  costs,  to  make  a heavy  grade  cloth,  say  10  to  12 
cent  yarn,  3 to  4 cents  per  pound — Incidentals  about  50  per  cent,  of 
the  labor;  while  in  finer  or  lighter  goods,  the  cotton  costing  the  same 
per  pound,  the  labor  and  incidentals  will  necessarily  increase,  as  30 
to  40  cent  yarn  goods  will  be  for  labor  10  to  12  cents  per  pound.  Lawns 
and  finer  fabrics,  tho  labor  will  be  20  to  30  cents  per  pound,  or  nearly 
double  the  cost  of  the  cotton,  the  incidentals  and  other  expenses  in- 
creasing in  proportion,  the  interest  on  plant  also  increasing,  as  it  re- 
quires the  additional  outlay  to  produce  the  same  amount  of  the  finer 
goods.  Our  manufacturers  are  too  apt  to  look  back  and  base  their  ar- 
guments and  conclusions  upon  the  long  past,  ignoring,  to  a large  ex- 
tent, the  great  and  changed  condition  of  things  both  in  relation  to  our- 
selves and  our  relations  to  other  countries.  I notice  the  manufacturers 
did  so  at  their  meeting,  to  consider  your  letter,  in  Providence,  R.  I., 
last  week,  when  they  brought  up  the  condition  of  their  interests  in 
1847,  when  there  was  great  depression,  brought  about  by  certain  tariff 
legislation,  and  which  seriously  disturbed  the  then  condition  of  manu- 
facturers. 

If  we  could  have  honest  tariff  reform  and  then  take  the  question  out 
of  politics,  so  as  to  stop  the  agitation  of  the  subject  whatever  those 
changes  might  be,  the  business  interests  of  the  country  would  soon  con- 
form thereto.  What  is  to  be  feared  the  most  is  tariff  agitation  and 
change  in  a partisan  spirit. 

If  you  wish,  I will  obtain  some  samples  of  goods,  with  cost  of  same, 
and  send  them  to  you. 

Shall  be  pleaged  to  give  such  information  as  I can  and  at  any  time 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


83 


as  will  enable  the  Department  to  get  at  the  practical  side  of  this  com- 
plex question,  made  more  so  by  the  selfish  manner  in  which  it  is  looked 
at  and  discussed. 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

D.  J.  JOHNSON. 


[Samuel  Campbell,  cotton  manufactures .] 

Oneida  County  N.  Y.,  August  3, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

. Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : I am  in  receipt  of  your  important  circular,  and  would  be 
pleased  to  render  you  any  information  within  my  power  on  the  subject- 
matter  therein,  but  fear  I cannot  aid  you  but  little,  if  any.  I believe 
that  specific  duties  should  be  adopted  on  all  imports  wherein  practical. 

As  to  changes  in  the  tariff,  if  any,  my  theory  would  be  to  lay  heavy 
duties  on  whatever  wealth  demands,  and  to  reduce  internal  revenue  to 
a minimum,  except  on  alcoholic  liquors,  wine,  and  tobacco.  I do  not 
think  our  industries  should  alone  be  taxed  to  support  the  Government. 
Foreign  countries  that  enjoy  the  opportunity,  and  are  protected  in  mer- 
chandising their  goods  in  our  markets,  should  pay  taxes  for  the  privi- 
lege. Hence  the  tariff,  which  would  have  a selfish  look  were  it  not  that 
we  welcome  the  industrious  from  other  countries  to  come  and  partici- 
pate with  us  in  the  advantages  of  this  nation,  and  also  the  rights  of 
citizenship. 

Any  reduction  of  the  tariff  means  a reduction  of  wages,  which  ought 
not  to  be,  and  can  only  in  the  end  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the  consumer, 
who  can  now  buy  goods  at  lower  prices  than  ever  known  heretofore, 
and  often  below  cost.  In  this  particular  I speak  from  a long  experience. 

I will  take  the  liberty  of  sending  you  a book  on  the  tariff  that  may 
throw  light  on  this  important  subject. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

SAML.  CAMPBELL. 


[The  Monadnock  Mills,  manufactures  of  cotton.  ] 

Boston,  August  4, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury ; 

Sir  : Your  circular  bearing  date  July  27,  1885,  is  received. 

I very  much  doubt  whether  specific  duties  would  be  found  more  satis- 
factory than  ad  valorem.  The  objection  to  them  is  that  where  a duty 
per  pound  or  per  piece  is  levied  upon  merchandise,  in  which  there  is  any 
considerable  range  of  quality  and  cost,  such  duty  will  be  excessive  on 
the  lowest  cost  and  too  small  on  the  highest  cost  of  that  article,  or  both. 

A large  portion  of  the  machinery  of  the  Monadnock  mills,  which  is 
under  my  management,  is  used  for  the  production  of  counterpanes  or 
bed  spreads.  The  duty  on  them  under  the  sweeping  clause,  u other 
manufactures  of  cotton,”  is  40  per  cent.  As  the  cost  of  those  that  1 
make  ranges  (the  size  being  the  same)  from  GO  cents  to  $3  each,  the  duty 
varies  from  24  cents  on  the  lowest  cost  to  $1.20  on  the  highest  cost,  the 
average,  say  72  cents  each. 


84 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Now,  if  a specific  duty  of  72  cents  was  levied  on  all,  it  would  result 
that  the  lowest  grade  would  be  taxed  120  per  cent.,  and  the  highest  grade, 
which  is  supposed  to  need  the  most  ‘‘protection,”  would  be  taxed  only 
18  per  cent. 

There  could  hardly  be  a better  example  of  the  evil  of  specific  duty 
than  this  from  my  mills. 

Under  the  present  tariff,  when  specific  duties  are  applied  partially  to 
textile  fabrics,  account  is  taken  of  the  fineness  of  the  fabric,  &c.,  "but 
to  obtain  entirely  fair  results  is  practically  impossible. 

My  judgment  is  that  ad  valorem  duties  based  upon  home  valuation, 
which  valuation  is  regulated  by  the  inspection  of  non-resident  officers, 
will  produce  as  good  and  just  results  as  any  that  can  be  devised. 

I am  an  advocate  of  a simple  tariff,  made  simple  by  applying  it  to  a 
few  (comparatively)  articles  and  the  release  of  trade  from  every  possi- 
ble restraint. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

FBANCIS  J.  PABKEB, 
Treasurer  of  the  MonadnocJc  Mills. 


[Healy  & Co.,  cotton  goods .] 

New  York,  November  23, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

We  trust  you  will  pardon  us  for  the  liberty  we  take  in  sending  you 
the  inclosed  samples,  but  believing  that  you  are  willing  to  receive  in- 
formation from  any  quarter  likely  to  assist  you  towards  an  equitable 
adjustment  of  the  tariff,  we  are  prompted  to  send  them. 

On  the  cuttings  you  will  find  name  and  width  of  goods ; also  the 
present  sterling  price,  the  duty  they  paid  up  to  the  bill  of  March,  1883, 
and  what  they  should  pay  under  present  rate. 

These  goods,  you  can  easily  understand,  and  many  others  of  similar 
classes,  used  principally  by  the  poor  and  hard-working,  pay  higher  rates 
than  silks,  velvets,  &c. 

See  Tarlatan,  No.  1.  These  were  principally  used  in  covering  peaches, 
&c.,  and  sold  at  about  6J  cents  a yard.  Now  they  cost  about  12  cents. 
Tarlatan,  No.  10,  used  for  millinery  purposes,  paying  under  present  rate 
70  per  cent,  if  brought  here  in  the  piece ; but  to  avoid  the  high  rate  it  is 
now  manufactured  as  needed  on  the  other  side,  and  entered  at  40  per 
cent.,  with  other  cotton  goods  so  classed.  Another  way  of  helping 
American  labor. 

Most  respectfully,  yours, 

HEALY  & CO. 


Note. — The  goods  above  mentioned  include  : Scotch  tarlatan,  50  inches  wide,  pres- 
ent sterling  value  per  yard,  lfd.  and  3| d.,  respectively,  the  former  being  now  subject 
to  a duty  of  4£  cents  and  the  latter  3£  cents  per  square  yard,  equal  to  175  and  70  per 
centum  ad  valorem  respectively. 

Swiss  mull  (Scotch),  foreign  value,  lfd.,  lfd.,  lid.,  and  2d.,  sterling,  per  yard  (28 
inches  wide),  respectively,  dutiable  at  from  3f  cents  to  4f  cents  per  square  yard,  equal 
to  from  57  to  above  125  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Lappet  curtain  muslins  (Scotch),  38  and  40  inches  wide,  sterling  value,  2d.  and  3d. 
per  yard,  dutiable  at  3f  cents  per  square  yard,  equal  to  70  and  90  per  cent,  ad  valo- 
rem, respectively. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


85 


Crinoline  lining  (Scotch),  31  to  38  inches  wide,  foreign  value  1 id.,  lfd.,  lid.,  If d., 
lid.,  lid.,  and  2d.,  sterling,  per  yard,  respectively,  equal  variously  to  150,  140,  130, 120, 
110, 105,  and  108  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Prior  to  the  act  of  March  3,  1883,  all  these  goods  paid  duty  at  35  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem. 


[The  same.] 

New  York,  November  25, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir  : Your  kind  favor  of  yesterday  in  reply  to  ours  of  the 
23d  instant  lias  been  received.  In  reply  allow  us  to  say  * # * We 

could  have  sent  you  much  more  of  similar  import,  but  disliked  trou- 
bling you  too  much  just  at  this  time.  We  inclose  one  cutting  of  goods, 
used  here  most  extensively  for  curtain  purposes,  and,  as  must  be  very 
evident,  only  by  the  poor.  The  present  value  of  this  article  in  Scotland 
is  2 it  measures  45  inches  wide,  and  would  pay  under  the  present 
duty  4 cents  per  square  yard,  equivalent  to  110  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
Of  course  you  know  that  the  finest  goods  of  this  class  imported  come 
in  under  the  40  per  cent.  rate. 

Thanking  you  for  such  prompt  attention,  we  remain,  respectfully, 
yours, 

HEALY  & CO. 

Note. — The  article  above  referred  to  was  formerly  subject  to  duty  at  35  per  cent, 
ad  valorem.  By  the  act  of  March  3, 1883,  it  was  made  dutiable  at  4 cents  per  square 
yard,  equal  to  about  110  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

[The  same.] 

New  York,  November  30,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir  : Two  years  ago  we  had  the  pleasure  of  forwarding  circu- 
lars like  the  inclosed,  with  cuttings  of  the  different  grades,  to  many  of 
the  leading  members  of  both  houses  of  Congress.  A reduction  in  the 
sterling  cost  since  then  has  changed  the  percentage  of  duty.  The 
present  rate  please  find  in  inclosed  sheet. 

We  remain,  respectfully,  yours, 

HEALY  & CO. 

SPECIFIC  DUTY  REDUCED  TO  AD  VALOREM. 

The  table  below  is  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  ad  valorem  duty  where  the  spe- 
cific duty  is  4£  cents  per  square  yard  on  colored  cotton  goods  counting  less  than  100 
threads  to  the  square  inch,  counting  warp  and  filling.  These  figures  should  show  to 
all  who  are  in  favor  of  an  equitable  tariff  the  injustice  of  the  present  one  to  a class  of 
goods  constantly  needed  and  chiefly  used  by  the  poorer  classes.  Allow  us  to  ask  if 
goods  measuring  from  31  to  36  inches  wide,  and  costing  in  Glasgow  from  1 id.  to  2 id., 
and  goods  measuring  50  inches  wide,  costing  from  If d.  to  Ad.,  should  pay  au  average 
duty  of  100  per  cent,  when  it  is  well  known  that  the  labor  value  of  these  goods  does 
not  exceed  25  per  cent.  It  should  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  labor  value  of  these 
goods  in  Scotland  is  about  15  per  cent.,  and  to  this  must  be  added  freight  from  Glas- 
gow and  other  charges,  amounting  to  about  10  per  cent,  on  these  classes  of  goods. 
From  these  figures  it  will  be  seen  that  the  percentage  of  duty  on  these  goods  .is  the 
percentage  of  profit  secured  to  the  American  manufacturer.  We  may  add  that  these 
classes  of  goods  are  all  made  from  American  cotton. 


86 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


BLACK  CRINOLINE  LINING. 


Quality.  Nos. 


Sterling 

cost 

per  yard 
in  Glasgow. 


Width. 


Value  in 
| American 
j money. 


Amount  of 
duty  per 
running 
yard. 


Equal  to  an 
advalorem 
duty  of— 


Cents. 


Cents. 


Ter  cent. 


No.  1... 
No.  2... 
No.  3.  .. 
No.  4... 

No.  5 

No.  6... 
No.  7... 
No.  8... 
No.  9... 
No.  10  . . . 
No.  11 . . . 
No.  12  . . . 


Average  duty 


31-32 

31-32 

31-32 

31-32 

31-32 

31-32 

31-32 

31-32 

35-36 

35-36 

35-36 

35-36 


2.  54 
2.  80 
3. 30 

3.  55 

3.  80 

4. 06 

4.  30 

5.07 
2.  80 

3. 30 
3.  55 

4. 30 


4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4.5 


4.5 


158 
143 
120 
112 
> 106 
98 
93 
80 
161 
137 
127 
105 


120 


6-4  TARLATANS. 


No.  1 

If 

2 

50 

3.  55 

6. 25 

176 

No.  2 

50 

4.  06 

6.  25 

153 

No.  3 

2i 

II 

50 

4.  56 

6. 25 

137 

No.  4 

50 

5.07 

6.  25 

123 

No.  5 

50 

5.58 

6.  25 

112 

No.  6 

3 

50 

6.  09 

6.  25 

102 

No.  7 

3i 

3* 

3f 

4 

50 

6.  60 

6.25 

94 

No.  8 

50 

7. 10 

6.25 

88 

No.  9 

50 

7.61 

6.  25 

82 

No.  10 

8. 12 

6.25 

77 

Avftragft  duty  

114 

The  samples  mentioned  in  the  above  communications  of  Healv  & Co.  will  be  separately  transmitted 
to  Congress. 


[Sherman,  Cecil  & Co.,  manufactures  of  cotton.'] 

New  York,  November  30,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington : 

Dear  Sir  : We  understand  that  there  is  to  be  some  effort  made  at 
the  next  session  of  Congress  to  modify  the  present  tariff;  and  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  poor  consumers,  whose  interests  have  been  very  much 
ignored  by  the  advocates  of  protection  to  our  u infant  industries,”  we 
beg  to  submit  to  you  samples  of  a few  goods  imported  by  us,  upon  which 
the  present  tariff  bears  very  heavily,  and,  we  think,  unjustly.  These 
samples,  you  will  observe,  represent  low  qualities  of  goods,  such  as  are 
used  by  the  poorer  classes,  and  it  seems  to  be  a great  wrong  that  they 
should  be  obliged  to  pay  a duty  of  from  75  per  cent,  to  200  per  cent., 
while  the  wealthier  classes  who  use  the  finer  qualities  of  the  same  goods 
pay  only  about  40  per  cent.  We  think  it  would  be  almost  impossible 
to  frame  a tariff  with  specific  duties  that  would  bear  equally  on  all 
grades  of  our  goods.  The  thing  that  would  come  the  nearest  to  doing 
it  would  be  to  introduce  a clause  that  no  manufactures  wholly  of  cotton 
shall  pay  a duty  of  over  25  or  30  per  cent.  Our  goods  being  almost 
exclusively  made  from  cotton,  we  leave  goods  made  from  other  mate- 
rials-to  others  better  qualified  to  give  you  information. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

SHERMAN,  CECIL  & CO. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


87 


Foreign 

cost 

per  yard. 

Cost  to 
land. 

Duty  per 
square 
yard. 

Percentage 
of  duty. 

Sample  No.  1 

d. 

■ 11 

Cents. 

3 4 

Cents. 

4 

100 

Sample  No.  2 

2* 

44 

4 

75 

Sample  No.  3 

2i 

4£ 

3* 

4 

75 

Sample  No.  4 

11 

34 

86 

Sample  No.  5 

1 

2 

44 

208 

Sample  No.  6 

2 

4 

44 

94 

Sample  No.  7 

18* 

3§ 

44 

125 

* Eighteen  centimes. 


Note. — These  samples  will  he  transmitted  separately  to  Congress. 


[The  Conant  Thread  Company,  spool  cotton  and  yarns.] 

Pawtucket,  R.  I.,  October  5;  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  29th  July,  we  beg  to  state  that 
the  present  system  of  specifie  rates  of  duty  based  upon  the  values  of 
yarns  adopted  March  3,  1883,  with  specific  duties  only  on  the  fully 
manufactured  article  of  spool  cotton  thread,  is  as  nearly  equitable  as 
could  be  devised,  and  was  a reduction  of  36  per  cent,  from  the  rates 
previously  exacted. 

Regarding  evasion  of  the  tariff  we  have  no  knowledge  or  complaint  to 
make. 

The  commercial  designations  of  the  articles  we  manufacture  are 
“ yarns  17  and  “spool  cotton, ’’  the  latter  being  made  from  the  former  and 
samples  being  sent  herewith. 

There  being  sharp  competition  between  manufacturers,  we  are  un- 
willing to  publish  the  minute  details  called  for  in  your  question  No.  2, 
with  notes  A to  E,  except  as  to  the  wages  paid  in  the  United  States  and 
Scotland,  with  which  country  we  compete  in  production. 

Being  connected  with  mills  in  both  countries,  I am  able  to  furnish 
complete  tables  of  wages  paid  operatives  iu  each.  The  table  annexed 
embraces  the  great  bulk  of  our  operatives  and  gives  as  correct  an  idea 
of  the  difference  of  wages  paid  in  the  two  countries  as  possible. 

The  average  weekly  wages  earned  in  Scotland  and  the  United  States 
from  pay-rolls  of  August  and  September  of  the  current  year  are  as  fol- 
lows: One-eighth  is  deducted  in  the  third  column  from  the  actual 
wages  earned  in  the  United  States  on  account  of  running  sixty-four 
hours  per  week,  the  running  time  in  Scotland  being  limited  to  fifty-six 
hours  per  week.  I may  here  mention  that  after  31st  December  next 
the  running  time  in  Rhode  Island  will  be  reduced  to  sixty  hours  per 
week. 


88 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


W eekly  wages  in 
Scotland,  earned 
in  56  hours. 

W eekly  wages  in 
United  States, 
earned  in  64 
hours. 

Estim  ated  weekly 
wages  in  United 
States  for  56 
hours,  as  in 
Scotland. 

Cop  spoolers 

$3  64 
2 55 

$8  14 
6 67 

$7  12 
5 84 

Twister  tenders 

Doffers 

1 98 

5 00 

4 37 

Keelers 

3 16 

8 19 

7 17 

Winders 

2 85 

8 59 

7 52 

Dyers 

5 35 

10  01 

8 76 

Bieachers 

3 77 

7 86 

6 88 

Mechanics 

6 99* 

14  50 

12  69 

Ticketers 

2 18 

4 99 

4 37 

Inspectors 

2 62 

6 81 

5 96 

Paper-box  makers 

3 28 

6 48 

5 67 

Foreman 

7 41 

15  00 

13  12 

Skein  spoolers 

2 65 

7 97 

6 97 

Gross  parcelers 

4 01 

10  98 

9 61 

Togiveas  correctan  ideaof  the  comparative  difference  in  wages  paid  in 
the  two  countries  as  possible,!  divided  the  pay-rolls  by  all  the  operatives 
employed  and  found  the  average  pay  in  Scotland  to  be  12s.  4 %d.  ster- 
ling per  week,  which  at  $4.86  per  pound  sterling  exchange  equals  $3.00J, 
while  the  average  pay  per  week  in  the  United  States  amounted  to  $7.54. 
When  the  running  time  is  reduced  to  sixty  hours  per  week,  after  31st 
December  next,  the  average  weekly  pay  in  the  United  States  would 
amount  to  $7.06J,  and  at  fifty-six  hours  per  week  (the  time  run  in  Scot- 
land) it  would  amount  to  $6.59§,  against  an  actual  average  of  all  wages 
paid  in  Scotland,  as  above,  of  $3.00J. 

For  strict  equity  in  comparing  the  cost  of  labor  in  the  two  countries, 
I have  reduced  in  the  third  column  the  weekly  wages  earned  in  the 
United  States  one-eighth,  to  be  the  exact  equivalent  of  the  amount 
earned  in  Scotland  in  the  same  number  of  working  hours,  but  should 
remark  that  the  operatives  in  Scotland  are  quite  as  efficient  as  in  the 
United  States,  attending  to  as  many  spindles  and  other  machinery  run- 
ning at  as  high  rates  of  speed  and  turning  out  the  same  quantity  of 
goods. 

They  are  limited,  however,  in  Scotland  to  56  hours  per  week,  and 
cannot  earn  more  than  $3.00J,  while  the  American  operative  at  present 
earns  $7.54. 

I desire  to  draw  attention,  also,  to  the  fact  that  bituminous  coal  in 
Scotland  costs  4 s.  per  ton  of  2,240,  pounds,  delivered  at  the  furnace, 
slightly  under  $1,  while  anthracite  coal  costs  over  three  times  that  price 
here.  The  coal  is  small  in  size,  but  is  handled  by  the  automatic  stokers 
admirably.  Gas  of  25-candle  power  costs  3s.  9 d.  sterling,  about  90  cents, 
per  1,000  cubic  feet,  while  here  we  have  to  pay  $1.75  for  the  same  quan- 
tity of  only  16-candle  power. 

The  factories  are  built  of  brick,  and  the  machinery  is  of  the  usual  de- 
scription for  manufacturing  fine  yarns  and  spool-cotton.  The  plant  has 
cost  over  three  and  a half  millions  of  dollars,  and  would  have  cost  less 
than  half  that  amount  in  Scotland. 

Steam  power  alone  is  used  in  both  countries,  and  this  item  is  an  im- 
portant one,  as  we  run  36  steam-boilers  of  a capacity  of  over  4000  horse- 
power. , 

In  conclusion,  I beg  leave  toexpress  the  opinion  that  the  present  rates 
of  duties  on  yarns  andspool-cotton  do  not  do  more  than  cover  the  addi- 
tional cost  of  the  goods  manufactured  here,  and  any  reduction  in  those 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  89 

rates  would  have  an  injurious  effect  on  the  labor  engaged  in  their  pro- 
duction. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAS.  COATS,  President , 

Conant  Thread  Company. 

Note. — Samples  will  he  transmitted  separately  to  Congress. 


[From  an  extensive  manufacturing  company  of  Connecticut,  spool  cotton .] 

October  1, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C, : 

Sir:  Eeferring  to  your  circular  dated  July  29,  1885,  requesting  in- 
formation in  regard  to  our  industry,  we  respectfully  beg  leave  to  pre- 
sent the  following  answers  in  reply  to  the  interrogations,  as  numbered : 

(1)  Spool  cotton,  for  both  hand  sewing  and  manufacturing  or  machine 
sewing. 

(2)  As  we  make  four  separate  qualties,  and  a great  variety  of  num- 
bers and  colors,  adapted  to  many  different  uses,  we  have  adopted  apian 
which  gives  the  information  desired  without  details  too  prolix  for  this 
paper  and  not  important  to  the  Department,  viz,  to  use  a unit  of  one 
hundred  as  a per  cent,  unit  of  cost  dividing  the  various  elements  of 
cost  into  the  actual  parts  of  this  unit  belonging  to  them. 

(a)  Material,  Long-stapled  cotton,  grown  on  southern  seaboard  of  the 
United  States,  commercially  known  as  sea-island  cotton. 

Cost  of  raw  material,  36  per  cent,  of  whole  cost. 

(b)  Cost  of  labor,  45  per  cent,  of  entire  cost. 


Average  wages  paid  to  men $8  19 

Average  wages  paid  to  girls 5 66 


Herewith  is  shown  the  difference  in  wages  paid  by  us  and  those  paid 
for  similar  work  in  Scotland.  We  take  the  Scotch  prices  from  pay- 
rolls furnished  the  Tariff  Commission  in  1882,  which,  we  are  informed, 
are  essentially  the  same  now : 


In  Paisley. 

In  United 
States. 

GIRLS. 

Cop. spoolers  

$3  40 
2 25 

$6  40 
4 52 

Twister-tenders 

Doffers 

1 94 

4 44 

Iteftlftrs  __ 

3 52 

7 46 

Winders 

2 80 

6 18 

Boxers  and  wrappers 

3 04 

6 37 

Box-malcera  _ _ 

3 28 

7 37 

MEN. 

Dyers  and  hlea.ehers _ _ 

5 04 

8 85 

Mechanics. 

7 94 

13  17 

Foremen 

7 41 

15  20 

The  whole  average  of  men  and  women  employed  in  Scotland  is  very 
near  $3  per  week,  very  many  more  women  being  employed  than  men, 
and  the  average  per  week  paid  by  us  is  about  $6.50,  or  more  than  double 
that  paid  in  Scotland. 


90  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

(c)  Operating  expenses,  including  dye-stuffs,  fuel,  supplies,  oil  and 
repairs,  18  per  cent,  of  entire  cost. 

(d)  We  employ  about  $4,000,000  in  our  business,  one-half  being  fixed 
capital  and  the  other  half  active  or  working  capital,  and  as  we  turn  our 
active  capital  but  once  a year  the  interest  charge  has  to  be  reckoned 
as  a yearly  charge  on  all  money  employed.  We  should  say  the  differ- 
ence between  this  country  and  Europe  should  be  put  at  2 per  cent.  In 
the  two  years  since  the  Tariff  Commission  reduced  the  duty  from  the 
equivalent  of  22  cents  on  a dozen  of  two  hundred  yard  spools  to  14  cents 
on  same,  we  have  not  earned  4 per  cent,  per  annum  on  capital  in- 
vested. 

( e ) Salaries  and  clerk  hire  represent  1 per  cent,  of  entire  cost. 

(3)  We  have  four  mills,  all  modern,  in  which  is  invested  $2,000,000, 
one-half  in  buildings  and  fixed  machinery,  and  one-half  in  movable  ma- 
chinery. 

The  unit  of  measure  for  retail  distribution  is  a spool  containing  200 
yards.  A package  containing  one  dozen  spools  is  the  unit  for  sale  to 
the  merchant.  Prior  to  the  change  made  in  1883  by  the  Tariff  Commis- 
sion, the  duty  on  a dozen  spools  of  200  yards  each  averaged  for  eighteen 
years  the  specific  equivalent  of  24  cents,  being  about  one-half  specific, 
and  balance  ad  valorem.  This  duty  was  so  favorable  to  the  American 
manufacturers  that  the  three  Scotch  firms  who  up  to  1860  had  made 
three-quarters  of  all  the  six-cord  thread  sold  in  the  United  States  trans- 
ferred their  manufacture  for  this  market  to  this  country,  invested  about 
$12,000,000  here,  and  became  American  manufacturers.  As  a conse- 
quence of  this  move,  not  over  2J  per  cent,  of  the  thread  used  in  the 
United  States  is  imported  on  spools. 

As  appears  from  list  mentioned  above,  the  wages  now  paid  by  us  av- 
erage double  those  paid  in  Scotland  for  similar  work.  After  the  Tariff 
Commission  reduced  the  duty  we  found  it  necessary  to  make  a general 
reduction  of  10  per  cent,  in  wages.  It  is  difficult  to  estimate  all  causes 
affecting  business  and  make  full  account  of  them,  but  we  respectfully 
call  your  attention  to  this  important  fact,  viz,  that  if  we  should  reckon 
the  cost  of  all  the  thread  we  have  sold  since  1883  (the  time  the  duty 
was  changed)  at  the  labor  cost  of  Europe  (saying  nothing  about  difference 
in  interest  and  other  elements  of  cost),  and  reckon  the  actual  labor  cost 
of  the  same  product  here,  the  difference  between  the  totals  representing 
labor  in  Europe  and  labor  here  largely  exceeds  the  entire  profit  made 
in  the  two  years.  As  stated  above  this  profit  does  not  reach  4 per  cent, 
per  annum  on  our  investment.  It  clearly  follows  that  any  reduction  in 
duty  involves  lower  wages. 

The  price  of  a spool  of  thread  containing  200  yards  was,  to  prior 
1860,  5 cents,  and  has  never  been  less.  This  is  the  present  price,  al- 
though the  quality  and  value  has  been  greatly  raised,  and  we  estimate 
thread  of  old  quality  could  be  sold  at  3 cents.  If  the  entire  duty  at 
present  imposed  should  be  removed  the  equivalent  reduction  in  the  re- 
tail price  of  thread  would  be  1 cent  per  spool,  or  a reduction  from  5 cents 
per  spool  to  4 cents,  20  per  cent.,  a difference  in  price  to  the  consumer 
not  excessive  when  compared  with  other  articles  of  merchandise,  and 
with  the  great  difference  of  wages  here  and  in  Europe. 

I have  the  honor  to  remain,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 


President  and  Treasurer . 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


91 


[From  the  same.] 

October  14, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , 1).  C. : 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  favor  of 
October  10,  asking  what  rates  of  duty,  in  our  opinion,  should  be  im- 
posed on  imported  articles  similar  to  those  produced  by  us. 

In  reply  we  would  respectfully  submit  the  following  statement : 

The  duty  on  spool  cotton,  before  the  act  of  1883,  was  as  follows : 

On  one  dozen  of  spools,  containing  not  over  one  hundred  yards,  6 
cents  and  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

On  each  one  hundred  yards  additional,  or  fraction  of  one  hundred 
yards,  6 cents,  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  As  standard  spool-cotton 
is  invariably  wound  two  hundred  yards  on  a spool,  the  duty  on  a dozen 
spools,  just  prior  to  the  act  of  1883,  was  equivalent  to  21.94  per  dozen. 
This  duty  was  reduced  by  the  Tariff  Commission  to  7 cents  on  a dozen 
spools  containing  one  hundred  yards,  and  7 cents  for  each  additional 
one  hundred  yards  or  fraction  of  the  same.  This  duty  being  14  cents 
on  a dozen  (as  it  would  be  imported),  as  against  about  22  cents  before 
the  act  of  1883,  is  a reduction  of  a little  over  36  per  cent. 

The  duty  which  would  affect  the  balance  of  goods  produced  by  us  is 
that  on  cotton  yarns.  Prior  to  1883  this  stood  as  follows  : 

Under  40  cents  per  pound,  10  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad 
valorem. 

Over  40  cents  and  under  60  cents  per  pound,  20  cents  and  20  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

Over  60  cents  and  under  80  cents  per  pound,  30  cents  and  20  percent, 
ad  valorem. 

Over  80  cents  per  pound,  40  cents  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

These  rates  were  reduced  by  the  Tariff  Commission  to  the  following: 

Under  25  cents  per  pound,  10  cents  per  pound. 

Over  25  cents  and  under  40  cents  per  pound,  15  cents  per  pound. 

Over  40  cents  and  under  50  cents  per  pound,  20  cents  per  pound. 

Over  50  cents  and  under  60  cents  per  pound,  25  cents  per  pound. 

Over  60  cents  and  under  70  cents  per  pound,  33  cents  per  pound. 

Over  70  cents  and  under  80  cents  per  pound,  38  cents  per  pound. 

Over  80  cents  and  under  100  cents  per  pound,  48  cents  per  pound. 

Over  100  cents,  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

This  reduction  averages  about  25  per  cent,  of  the  former  duty.  These 
reductions  were  made  by  a commission,  in  part  composed  and  largely 
controlled  by  representatives  of  great  associations  engaged  in  the  pro- 
ductive industries  of  the  United  States,  and  the  spool-cotton  and  fine 
cotton  yarn  interests  were  not  influential  with  this  commission.  We 
then  thought,  and  still  think,  that  the  tariff  on  our  product  was  dispro- 
portionately reduced  in  order  to  aid  the  Tariff  Commission  in  securing 
the  average  reduction  of  20  per  cent,  at  which  they  aimed. 

We  have  now  accommodated  our  business  to  this  reduction,  in  part 
by  reduction  of  wages  and  in  part  by  loss  of  profit ; and  we  desire  no 
increase  of  duty,  but  only  that  present  duties  may  remain  in  force. 

With  great  respect,  I have  the  honor  to  remain, 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 


President  and  Treasurer. 


92 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[The  Hadley  Company,  cotton  yarns  and  threads. ] 

Boston,  October  9, 1885. 

Daniel  Manning,  Esq., 

Secretary , Treasury  Department , Washington  : 

Sir:  At  the  request  of  Mr.  A.  T.  Lyman,  our  treasurer,  who  is  now 
abroad,  we  send  you  a copy  of  a circular  framed  to  show  the  possible 
consequence  to  us,  and  other  spinners  of  fine  cotton  yarns  and  threads, 
of  any  such  reduction  on  duties  as  was  proposed  by  the  Morrison  bill. 
If  you  have  not  seen  it,' it  may  be  of  service  in  considering  the  proposed 
change  in  method  of  levying  duties. 

After  it  was  written,  prices  fell  steadily,  and  we  have  been  doing 
business  at  a loss ; our  yarn  business  showing  a loss  of  about  5 per  cent, 
for  1884,  no  account  having  been  taken  since.  Home  competition  on 
coarse  numbers  and  foreign  competition  on  fine  numbers,  the  cost  of 
which  is  mostly  labor,  having  brought  about  this  result. 

You  can  therefore  readily  see  that  any  further  reduction  on  duties 
would  be  likely  to  lead  to  a closing  of  our  mill,  and  throw  the  seven 
hundred  or  more  people  we  employ  out  of  work,  in  the  only  business 
they  have  been  trained  to  get  a living  in,  and  which  has  enabled  them 
to  lay  by  a good  deal  more  money  in  the  Holyoke  Savings  Bank  than 
we  have  made  in  employing  them. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

HADLEY  COMPANY, 

By  JOHN  E.  LOCKETT, 

Treasurer  pro.  tern. 


To  the  honorable  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

Mouse  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

The  undersigned,  manufacturers  of  fine  cotton  yarns  in  the  United  States,  do  hereby 
protest  against  any  reduction  by  Congress  of  the  duty  now  imposed  upon  “cotton-thread 
yarn,  warps,  or  warp  yarn,  &c.,”  in  Schedule  I,  Cotton  and  Cotton  Goods,  paragraph 732, 
act  of  March  3,  1883.  That  law  abolished  the  compound  duty,  the  duty  on  packing 
charges  and  expenses,  and  doubled  the  classification  of  values  imposed  by  the  t ariff  of 
1867.  It  effected  an  actual  reduction  from  former  rates  on  the  fine  cotton  yarns  im- 
ported in  competition  with  those  of  domestic  manufacture,  varying  from  20  to  35  per 
cent.,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  following  table,  which  may  be  depended  upon  for  ac- 
uracy : 

Table  showing  the  reduction  of  duty  effected  by  the  tariff  act  of  March'S,  1883. 


■Prt 

a p.0 
w>7® 

Duty,  tariff  of  1867. 

Duty,  tariff  t>f 
1883. 

© n 
11 

Rate. 

Amount. 

Rate. 

1 

Amount. 

O * 

25 

10  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem 

Cents. 

15 

Cents. 

10 

Cents. 

10 

33.  33 

40 

10  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem 

18 

15 

15 

16.  67 

50 

20  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem 

30 

20 

20 

33/33 

60 

20  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem 

32 

25 

25 

21.87 

70 

30  cents  per  pound  and  2 ) per  cent,  ad  valorem 

44 

33 

33 

25.  00 

80 

30  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem 

46 

38 

38 

17.  39 

$1  00 

40  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem 

60 

48 

48 

20.  00 

The  duty  formerly  paid  on  cases  and  packages  is  not  included  in  above  calculation. 
Estimating  such  charges  at  5 per  cent,  and  the  duty  upon  them  at  20  per  cent.,  it 
would  increase  the  reduction  of  duty  on  the  above  from  1.10  to  1.80  per  cent. 

This  reduction  was  a real  and  substantial  one,  greater  than  we  believed  to  be 
equitable,  and  more  than  our  industry  could  afford  to  have  made.  In  consequence 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


93 


of  it  we  were  compejled  to  accept  lower  prices  for  our  yarns  to  prevent  the  importa- 
tion of  foreign  competing  yarns,  and  our  business  has  been,  and  now  is,  unremunera- 
tive.  To  have  another  reduction  follow  so  soon  upon  the  large  one  already  made 
would  be  very  disastrous  to  us,  especially  in  view  of  the  depressed  condition  of  general 
business  at  this  time,  with  which  our  industry«sympathizes  in  common  with  others. 
Any  reduction  of  this  duty  on  foreign  yarns  would  compel  a further  reduction  in  the 
prices  of  competing  domestic  yarns,  and  this  would  necessitate  manufacturing  at  a 
loss,  or  the  cutting  down  of  the  wages  of  work  people,  or  the  discontinuance  of  the 
manufacture. 

We  do  most  earnestly  protest  against  the  application  of  a horizontal  reduction  to 
our  industry.  Some  of  us  are  making  yarns  so  tine  that  a single  strand  66.82  miles 
long  weighs  only  1 pound,  and  necessarily  the  amount  of  labor  involved  in  the  manu- 
facture of  such  is  in  proportion  to  its  fineness.  The  following  table  gives  the  price 
of  No.  40  2-ply  warp  yarn  during  the  last  fifteen  years : 


Years. 

Per  pound. 

Years. 

Per  pound. 

1869  

Gents. 

72* 

65 

60 

70 

60 

50 

46 

45 

1877 , 

Gents. 

42* 

41 

35 

47* 

44 

40 

34 

30 

1870  

1878 ' . 

1871  

1879 

1872  

1880 

1873 

1881 

1874  

1882 

1875  

1883 

1876. . 

1884 

To  us  and  those  whom  we  employ  the  reduction  proposed  by  the  bill  now  before  you 
would  be  ruinous. 


[The  same.] 

November  19,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir  : In  reply  to  your  letter  of  October  13,  addressed  to  Mr.  John  E. 
Lockett,  treasurer  pro  tempore  of  the  Hadley  Company,  I would  say  that 
while  it  is  true  that  the  existing  tariff  affords  less  protection  against 
importations  of  fine  yarns  than  against  coarse  ones,  I am  decidedly  of 
the  opinion,  under  existing  circumstances,  that  there  should  be  no  ad- 
vance in  the  rates  of  duty  on  cotton  yarns,  and  that  no  change  in  rates 
is,  on  the  whole,  to  be  recommended. 

The  duties  on  cotton  yarns,  though  nominally  specific,  are  practically, 
to  a large  extent,  ad  valorem,  being  based  on  foreign  values;  but  though 
there  is  serious  objection  to  this  system,  the  practical  difficulties  in  this 
case  are  not,  perhaps,  very  serious,  and  they  are  not  easy  to  obviate. 
It  will  readily  be  seen  that  if  a yarn  is  worth  really  81  cents  per  pound 
some  way  would  often  be  found  to  have  the  price  made  80  cents,  to  save 
the  additional  10  cents  duty,  and  it  would  be  practically  impossible  even 
for  experts  to  say  whether  a certain  yarn  were  worth  80  cents,  or  80J 
cents,  or  81  cents,  or  what  the  price  really  paid  was. 

It  would  be  fairer  and  better  if  there  were  many  more  rates,  at  least 
as  concerns  the  values  above  40  cents  or  50  cents.  For  really  low  num- 
bers 10  cents  is  ample  protection,  but  thefe  are  many  yarns  of  a foreign 
value  not  exceeding  40  cents  that  would  cause  serious  additional  com- 
petition if  the  duty  were  under  15  cents,  and,  for  protection,  I think 
there  should  be  no  reduction  in  the  duty  on  any  yarns  not  exceeding  40 
cents  in  foreign  value.  I do  not  see  any  objection  to  the  increase  in  the 
number  of  rates  on  the  yarns  of  higher  cost,  though  I think  the  proper 


94  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

way  to  levy  a duty  on  cotton  yarns  is  to  base  it  on  thp  fineness,  i.  e .,  on 
the  u number  v of  the  single  yarn.*  This  plan  was  proposed  many  years 
ago,  and  is,  I think,  that  adopted  in  the  French  tariff  It  was  in  fact 
embodied  in  one  of  our  tariff  act£  (act  of  March  3, 1865,  fourth  paragraph 
of  first  section),  but  was  held,  I believe,  to  be  an  accident  or  error,  and 
overruled  as  impossible  of  application.  I see  no  reason  for  this  view 
of  the  case,  however,  as  the  yarns  can  readily  be  measured  and  weighed 
and  the  size  or  number  ascertained  with  comparatively  little  difficulty. 
But  if  no  change  of  this  sort  is  to  be  made,  and  no  addition  to  the 
classification  or  number  of  rates,  I think  the  duties  should  remain  as 
they  are. 

There  was  a real  and  large  reduction  of  duty  on  cotton  yarns  made  by 
the  tariff  act  of  1883,  and  cotton  yarns  certainly  should  not  be  subjected 
to  further  reduction  at  present,  unless  a radical  change  in  system  is 
adopted  by  Congress,  as  it  would  be  treating  this  branch  of  industry 
unfairly  and  not  like  others.  But  I cannot  think  that  an  advance  in 
rates  would  be  of  permanent  benefit  to  the  country  or  even  to  the  yarn- 
spinners.  If  an  advance  tended  to  reduce  importations  for  the  time,  it 
would  certainly  lead  to  an  increased  production  at  home,  and  probably, 
to  an  undue  extent,  and  especially  in  yarns  of  such  fineness  as  cannot 
be  made  here  except  at  very  much  higher  cost  than  in  Europe,  owing  to 
the  high  cost  of  plant,  the  very  large  proportion  of  wages  in  the  cost  of 
very  fine  yarns,  and  the  small  weight  of  yarn  produced  from  the  ma- 
chinery. It  is  not  likely  that  any  advance  in  duty  would  be  long  main- 
tained, and  an  advance  and  subsequent  reduction  would  do  more  harm 
than  the  retention  of  present  rates. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

ARTHUB  T.  LYMAN, 
Treasurer  of  Hadley  Company. 


[John  T.  Bailey  & Co.,  burlaps.'] 

Philadelphia,  July  27,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular  of  24th  duly  received,  and  has  our  careful 
consideration. 

Burlaps  are  the  only  merchandise  we  import  subject  to  ad  valorem 
duties.  These  are  cloths  made  from  jute,  a product  of  Hindostan,  and 
is  a cheap,  heavy  cloth,  tolerably  durable  if  kept  dry,  and  largely  used 
for  bags,  baling,  upholstering,  and  other  purposes  where  a cheap,  heavy 
cloth  is  desirable. 

The  standard  goods  are  40  inches  wide,  and  are  graded  by  weight, 
the  difference  of  weight  being  the  half-ounce,  as  8 ounces,  8J  ounces, 
9 ounces,  9J  ounces,  &c.  The  prices  of  the  several  grades  are  regulated 
by  the  price  of  10J  ounces.  The  invoices  from  Dundee,  Scotland  (which 
is  the  chief  center  of  supply  for  the  Atlantic  States),  makes  a difference 
generally  of  one-twelfth  of  a penny  per  half  ounce;  this,  with  the  present 
duty  of  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  and  the  freight,  makes  nearly  a quarter 
of  a cent,  so  the  difference  in  prices  of  the  several  grades  in  the  Atlantic 

* This  does  not  wholly  cover  the  case,  as  there  are  various  qualities  aud  costs,  differ- 
ing greatly  for  the  same  size,  but  it  hardly  seems  necessary  to  add  an  ad  valorem  rate 
to  meet  this  point. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


95 


States  is  one-fourth  cent  per  half  ounce.  The  chief  source  of  supply  for 
the  Pacific  States  is  Calcutta.  The  invoices  from  Calcutta  make  a differ- 
ence of  116  of  a penny  between  the  several  grades  ; this  makes  about 
one-sixth  of  a cent  in  the  prices  of  the  several  grades  in  the  Pacific 
States. 

The  Calcutta  burlaps  are  not  so  uniform  nor  so  desirable  as  the  Dun- 
dee, although  we  understand  that  the  manufacturers  there  are  improv- 
ing the  quality  of  their  goods.  Some  burlaps  are  made  in  Germany, 
but  so  far  as  we  know  none  are  imported  into  the  United  States. 

These  goods  being  cheap  and  bulky  offer  very  little  inducement  to 
undervaluation.  We  have  had  business  relations  in  a greater  or  less 
degree  for  the  last  twenty-five  years  with  all  the  leading  importers 
engaged  in  this  trade,  and  we  have  no  knowledge  of  a single  instance  of 
undervaluation,  and  we  do  not  see  that  a change  from  ad  valorem  duties 
to  specific  will  simplify  in  any  way  our  business  with  the  custom-house. 

The  other  merchandise  we  import  is  subject  to  specific  duties,  namely, 
hemp  and  tow,  and,  of  course,  need  no  elucidation. 

Yours,  truly, 


JOHN  T.  BAILEY  & CO. 
Per  MILLS. 


[The  Chelsea  Jute-Mills,  burlaps.'] 

New  York,  October  5,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury , Washington: 

My  Dear  Sir:  We  would  submit  the  following  statement  relative  to 
the  jute  trade  of  the  United  States,  in  reply  to  the  circular  issued  by 
your  Department : 

Jute  and  jute-butts  are  the  products  of  the  jute-plant,  which  is  grown 
almost  exclusively  in  India.  Several  attempts  have  been  made  to  pro- 
duce it  in  this  country,  but  owing  to  the  high  cost  of  its  cultivation  and 
preparation  for  market  it  has  been  found  to  be  impracticable,  and  the 
idea  has  been  abandoned. 

The  bottom  of  the  plant,  or  stubble,  is  the  jute-butt  of  commerce,  and 
is  used  only  in  the  manufacture  of  gunny-cloth  for  baling  cotton  and 
as  paper-stock,  while  the  upper  part,  or  fiber,  called  jute,  is  spun  into 
yarn  and  woven  into  various  fabrics,  which  are  sold  under  the  names 
of  burlaps,  oil  cloths,  canvas,  &c. 

The  great  bulk  of  jute  goods  imported  into  this  country  (about  80  per 
cent.)  is  called  burlaps,  an  uncolored  jute  cloth,  generally  40  inches  in 
width,  and  of  various  weights.  It  is  made  into  coverings  and  bags,  and, 
on  account  of  its  cheapness,  has  become  the  most  important  medium  for 
the  transportation  of  agricultural  products.  Burlaps  are  sold  entirely 
by  weight — that  is,  they  are  always  quoted  as  10-ounce,  lOJ-ounce,  &c., 
signifying  the  weight  of  a yard  40  inches  in  width.  In  the  main  the 
price  varies  one-quarter  cent  for  each  half  ounce,  the  heavier  goods 
bringing  the  higher  prices. 

This  little  shade  of  difference  in  weight  is  oftentimes  the  manufact- 
urer’s only  profit,  so  that  it  becomes  a matter  of  prime  importance,  not 
only  with  Government,  if  it  would  collect  full  duties,  but  to  all  Amer- 
ican jute-mills,  that  duties  be  paid  on  actual  weights  and  goods  be  not 
entered  under  false  certificates  showing  them  to  be  one  ounce  or  even 
one-half  ounce  lighter  than  they  really  are. 


96  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

If  your  Department  will  compare  the  samples  accompanying  this  let- 
ter and  marked  with  their  various  weights,  it  will  be  evident  that  the 
difference  between  10  and  10J  ounce  burlaps*  or  between  any  two  sam- 
ples showing  a variation  of  one-half  or  one  ounce,  cannot  be  detected  by 
the  eye.  As  a matter  of  fact,  it  is  impossible  for  the  manufacturer  him- 
self to  distinguish  the  difference  of  an  ounce  without  most  careful  in- 
spection of  large  pieces. 

Difficult  as  it  is  to  decide  between  burlaps  of  the  same  make  and  fin- 
ish, it  becomes  doubly  so  when  there  is  a variation  in  the  calendering 
or  dressing  of  the  goods. 

In  the  present  condition  of  the  tariff  and  inspection,  we  therefore  be- 
lieve it  is  virtually  impossible  to  collect  the  proper  duties,  and  that  it 
is  an  easy  matter  to  enter  false  invoices  without  fear  of  detection. 

Such  being  the  present  state  of  the  tariff  and  its  enforcement,  the 
natural  inquiry  is,  What  is  the  remedy?  We  do  not  believe  one  can  be 
found  or  applied  so  long  as  there  remains  an  ad  valorem  duty  on  jute 
goods.  We  would,  therefore,  suggest,  as  the  only  sure  euforcement  of 
the  customs  laws  and  for  sustaining  and  upbuilding  this  industry, 
a specific  duty  of  2J  mills  per  ounce  on  all  burlaps  60  inches  in  width 
and  under  and  of  3 mills  per  ounce  on  all  burlaps  over  60  inches  in 
width  imported  into  the  United  States.  (See  Schedule  A.) 

Such  a duty  will  avoid  all  danger  of  false  invoices  and  secure  accu- 
rate appraisement,  for  then  the  only  requisite  will  be  to  get  the  exact 
weight  of  each  bale  and  apply  the  specific  duty. 

Many  of  the  objections  raised  in  the  case  of  burlaps  exist  in  regard 
to  yarn.  Jute  yarns  are  denominated  8,  10,  or  12  pounds,  &c.,  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  pounds  required  to  produce  a given  length ; hence 
8-pound  yarn  is  finer  than  10-pound,  &c.  The  cost  and  price  increase 
as  the  yarn  becomes  finer,  but  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  between  8 and 
9,  or  9 and  10  pound  yarns,  and  yet  this  difference  is  the  essential  eco- 
nomical factor  in  its  manufacture  and  sale.  We  wouldv  therefore, 
recommend  a specific  duty  of  2 mills  per  ounce  as  the  only  sure  means  of 
a full  and  fair  enforcement  of  the  tariff  laws. 

The  price  of  burlaps  in  Great  Britain  to-day  is  far  below  the  cost  of 
production,  and  it  is  a well-known  fact  that  her  mills  are  running  and 
have  been  running  for  a long  time  at  a serious  loss,  so  that  the  present 
duty  is  no  fair  criterion  by  which  to  judge  the  comparative  cost  of  pro- 
duction between  the  two  countries. 

The  Schedule  A,  hereto  attached,  which  shows  the  actual  difference 
between  the  cost  of  labor  and  capital  in  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
is  the  only  reliable  basis,  because  it  remains  fixed  during  the  fluctua- 
tion of  the  market.  As  a verification  of  our  statement  we  would  call 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  burlaps  have  been  double  their  present 
price  within  the  past  five  years. 

America  consumes  more  jute  goods  than  any  country  in  the  world,  and 
yet  makes  but  one  forty  second  of  the  production  of  Great  Britain  and 
her  provinces,  and  but  one-sixteenth  of  that  of  a single  Scotch  city. 

This  great  industry  (the  jute  crop  of  the  world  is  half  that  of  cotton) 
is  so  restricted  in  the  United  States  that  all  the  manufactories  here  are 
not  sufficient  to  supply  a single  State  with  its  cheapest  and  most  econom- 
ical fabric. 

We  believe  the  circular  of  your  Department  is  a step  in  the  right  di- 
rection and  tends  to  correct  this  unfortunate  condition  of  affairs,  the 
cause  of  which  is  apparent  to  every  one  who  studies  our  customs  laws. 

Very  respectfully, 


WM.  LYALL,  Treas. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


97 


Schedule  A. 


Weekly  wages  in  jute-mills. 


Preparers  for  spinners : 

Lads  and  boys 

Women 

Spinners : 

Women  

Lads  and  boys 

Girls  

Twisters  (women) 

Keelers : 

Women 

Lads  and  boys 

Girls  

Overlookers  (men) 

Laborers  (men) 

Winders  (women) 

Warpers  (women) 

Beamers  (men) 

Weavers: 

Women 

Girls . . , 

Overseers  (men) 

Tenters  (men) 

Total 


Great  United 
Britain.  ; States. 


$1  75 

$4  50 

1 97 

4 95 

2 29 

6 75 

1 63 

4 95 

1 63 

3 75 

2 52 

4 50 

2 62 

6 75 

1 75 

4 75 

1 20 

3 60 

5 79 

16  20 

3 39 

9 00 

2 57 

5 40 

2 84 

6 30 

4 78 

12  15 

2 52 

5 85 

j 1 75 

4 50 

i 5 34 

16  20 

! 5 82 

13  50 

51  57 

132  25 

Ratio  2 to  5. 

The  wages  in  Calcutta  (one  of  the  great  centers  for  the  manufactnring  of  burlaps) 
are  about  one-half  those  of  England. 

Comparative  cost  of  labor  and  capital  for  making  one  pound  of  burlaps  in  the  United 

States  and  Great  Britain. 


Labor 

Mill  supplies 

Insurance  and  interest,  $400,000  plant.  6 per  cent,  in  United  States,  3 per  cent, 
in  Great  Britain ; plant  in  Great  Britain  costing  two-thirds  same  plant  in 

United  States 

Salaries  and  office  expenses 

Interest  on  working  capital,  $100,000 

Ailowance  for  wear  of  machinery  and  deterioration  of  plant  as  above,  5 per 

cent 

Duty  on  raw  material,  20  per  cent 


United 

States. 

Great, 

Britain. 

Differ- 

ence. 

$2  71 

$1  08 

$1  63 

l 14 

76 

38 

77 

26 

61 

1 64 

30 

34 

20 

10 

10 

. 65 

42 

23 

60 

60 

6 71 

2.  92 

3 79 

A duty  of  2^  mills  per  ounce  on  burlaps  60  inches  in  width  and  under,  and  3 mills 
per  ounce  ou  burlaps,  oil-cloths,  canvas,  &c.,  over  60  inches  in  width,  is  about  the 
actual  difference  between  the  cost  of  labor  and  capital  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States. 

Please  notice  the  duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  the  raw  material,  which  is  not  only  bur- 
densome, but  unwise,  since  jute  does  not  enter  into  competition  with  any  fiber  grown 
in  America.  It  should  be  placed  on  the  free  list. 

Note. — Samples  will  be  transmitted  separately  to  Congress. 

S.  Ex.  72 7 


98 


EEPOET  OF  THE  SECEETAEY  OF  THE  TEEASUEY. 


[Chelsea  Jnte  Mills,  burlaps.  1 

New, York,  October  22,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.  : 

Dear  Sir  : Your  esteemed  favor  of  the  9th  instant,  relative  to  the 
jute  industry,  was  duly  received  and  carefully  considered. 

We  are  pleased  to  note  your  evident  interest  in  this  important  branch 
of  textile  manufacturing,  and  believe  your  efforts  can  and  will  aid  in 
its  establishment  in  our  own  country. 

We  shall  try  and  answer  your  inquires  as  they  occur  in  your  letter. 

More  than  four-fifths  of  the  jute  goods  imported  into  the  United 
States  are  burlaps,  and  we  shall,  therefore,  confine  our  attention  mainly 
to  this  class  of  fabrics. 

Burlaps  are  used  chiefly  for  bags  and  coverings. 

The  most  common  varieties  weigh  from  8 ounces  to  12  ounces  for  one 
yard  of  40  inches  in  width. 

For  the  past  two  years  burlaps  have  been  selling  in  the  American 
market  below  the  cost  of  production.  (It  should  be  borne  in  mind 
while  considering  this  question  that  Dundee  and  Calcutta  are  the  two 
great  centers  of  this  industry.)  The  present  demoralization  of  prices 
has  been  due  in  the  main  to  two  causes,  which  we  will  recite  somewhat 
in  detail.  Until  recent  years  jute  manufactories  were  prosperous  in 
Great  Britain,  and  mills  multiplied  rapidly  in  and  about  Dundee. 

The  prosperity  of  Dundee  induced  Scotch  capitalists  to  build  mills 
in  Calcutta,  near  the  jute  fields  of  .India,  where  the  cost  of  labor  and 
freight  might  be  reduced  to  a minimum. 

These  corporations  were  successful  for  a time,  but  the  profits  of  the 
first  few  led  to  the  formation  of  many  more,  until  to-day  cheap  Indian 
labor  not  only  finds  no  remuneration,  but  has  destroyed  the  jute  busi- 
ness of  Dundee. 

This  unfortunate  competition  has  most  effected  burlaps,  because  the 
mills  of  Calcutta  do  not  spin  yarn  for  market,  and  it  has  gone  so  far 
that  finished  woven  goods  are  selling  at  about  the  same  price  as  yarns, 
while  the  labor  in  their  manufacture  is  far  greater. 

Too  many  Scotch  and  Indian  mills  have  reduced  the  price  to  a lower 
figure  than  was  ever  known  in  the  history  of  the  trade,  and  far  below 
cost  of  production,  consequently  no  intelligent  comparison  of  duties  at 
present  prices  can  be  made.  Any  such  figures  would  be  misleading 
and  unfair,  and  would  have  to  be  constantly  modified  in  order  to  keep 
up  with  the  fluctuation  of  the  market.  We  are  assured  that  the  com- 
parative cost  of  labor  and  capital,  and  not  the  selling  price,  should  be 
the  only  standard  of  comparison. 

The  duty  now  levied  was  established  in  1874,  and  any  comparison  of 
specific  with  ad  valorem  duties  should  be  made  on  prices  at  that  time, 
in  order  to  show  the  protection  contemplated  by  Congress.  We  do  not 
believe  in  such  a basis  even,  but  maintain  that  the  only  fair,  economical 
factors  to  be  considered,  if  the  Government  would  establish  this  indus- 
try in  America,  are  the  differences  between  theco^t  of  capital  and  labor 
in  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain.  It  was  for  this  reason  that  we 
set  before  you,  in  our  former  communication  upon  this  subject,  a detailed 
comparison  of  these  two  elements,  to  which  we  would  again  call  your 
careful  attention. 

We  suggested  a specific  duty  of  2J  mills  per  ounce  on  all  burlaps  un- 
der 60  inches  in  width,  on  the  supposition  that  the  duty  upon  the  raw 
material  would  be  retained;  but  if  that  be  removed,  a duty  of  2 mills  per 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


99 


ounce  would  cover  the  comparative  cost  of  labor  and  capital  in  United 
States  and  Great  Britain.  We  also  suggest,  for  the  reasons  above  st  ated, 
a duty  of  2J  instead  of  3 mills  per  ounce  on  all  burlaps  over  00  inches 
wide. 

The  necessity  of  placing  a higher  duty  on  wide  burlaps  than  on  nar- 
row is  because  its  limited  sale  and  increased  cost  require  it. 

It  needs  a better  loom  and  more  skilled  labor.  Its  enhanced  cost  is 
recognized  by  all  manufacturers  as  well  as  by  the  preseut  discrimina- 
tion of  10  per  cent,  in  its  favor  under  the  existing  tariff.  It  is  used 
almost  exclusively  for  oil  cloth  foundation,  and  is  therefore  often  called 
“oil-cloth  canvas,”  which  varies  in  width  from  2 to  8 yards. 

We  would  say,  in  answer  to  your  inquiry,  that  we  do  not  make  gunny 
cloth,  but  being  familiar  with  its  manufacture  will  refer  briefly  to  it. 

It  is  made  entirely  from  jute  butts,  the  lower  and  cheaper  end  of  the 
jute  plant,  and  contains  no  jute  proper.  It  weighs  from  2 to  2£  pounds 
per  yard  of  45  inches  in  width.  (We  send  herewith  samples  of  jute, 
jute  butts,  and  gunny  cloth.)  The  duty  upon  gunny  cloth  is  specific, 
1£  cents  and  2 cents  per  pound,  or  3 to  5 cents  per  yard,  according  to 
quality. 

The  duty  upon  jute  butts  is  $5  per  ton,  or  0.22  cent  per  pound ; 
on  the  medium  grades  of  jute  it  averages,  at  20  per  cent.,  from  0.50  to 
0.80  cent  per  pound.  That  is,  the  manufacturer  of  gunny  cloth  has 
more  aid  from  the  Government  on  raw  material  and  on  the  cloth  (for 
the  labor  expended)  than  the  maker  of  burlaps. 

A specific  duty  has  so  firmly  established  the  gunny  cloth  industry  in 
America  that  we  now  supply  all  the  wants  of  our  own  country  with 
this  cheap  but  necessary  fabric. 

Jute  has  never  been  grown  in  the  United  States  except  as  a matter  of 
experiment,  when  its  cost  was  louud  so  great  as  to  render  its  cultivation 
impracticable,  and  the  idea  has  been  abandoned. 

It  may  be  well  to  call  your  attention  to  the  proportion  of  labor  ex- 
panded upon  jute  fabrics  in  comparison  with  that  upon  silk,  cotton,  or 
woolen.  It  is  a very  easy  error  to  fall  into,  to  think  that  burlaps,  worth 
nominally  only  9 cents  to  lu  cents  per  pound,  should  not  have  so  large 
a duty  as  the  more  costly  fabrics ; but  when  you  consider  the  percentage 
of  labor  expended  upon  the  various  textile  materials  in  proportion  to 
their  value,  it  will  plainly  appear  that  it  is  actually  greater  in  jute  goods 
than  any  other  named. 

That  is  a jute  cloth  or  burlaps  costing  10  cents  per  pound  will  have 
65  per  cent,  of  that  cost  in  labor,  while  that  in  cottons,  woolens,  and 
silks  is  much  less  than  50  per  cent.,  because  the  raw  material  used  in 
their  manufacture  bears  a larger  proportion  of  their  cost. 

The  following  figures  show  the  importation  of  burlaps  into  the  United 
States,  duty  paid,  in  the  years  mentioned  (they  include  bagging,  which 
is  mainly  a kind  of  burlaps): 


Year  ending  June  30, 1881  $7, 390, 897 

Year  ending  June  30, 1883  8,209,010 

Year  ending  June  30, 1882  6, 953, 931 


There  are  two  small  mills  in  California  where  burlaps  have  been  made, 
but  they  have  both  failed  financially,  and  we  do  not  know  that  they  are 
in  operation  today.  There  are  only  two  raids  of  any  size  or  perma- 
nence in  this  country  that  produce  burlaps,  and  they  do  not  annually 
make  together  over  $350,000  worth  of  goods — not  5 per  ceut.  of  our 
consumption.  Neither  of  these  mills  produces  a yard  of  the  standard 
40-iuch  fabric,  which  is  the  great  staple  of  the  trade,  nor  could  they  af- 


100  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


ford  to  turn  a single  loom  upon  it.  Both  make  specialties  that  are  re- 
moved to  a certain  extent  from  foreign  competition  on  account  of  t*he 
limited  demand  for  them. 

Burlaps  are  almost  as  essential  a factor  in  the  moving  of  agricultural 
products  as  the  plow  is  in  their  cultivation.  Every  farmer  and  produce 
merchant  must  have  his  cheap  jute  sacks;  they  form  an  element  in  the 
marketing  of  our  crops,  but  to-day  Great  Britain  and  her  provinces 
supply  all  our  wants  except  to  an  extent  that  is  almost  infinitesimal. 
Should  English  ports  be  blockaded  to-morrow  our  supply  would  be  cut 
off,  and  the  result  would  be  felt  by  every  farmer  in  the  land. 

We  have  seen  that  the  manufacturing  of  gunny-cloth  has  been  en- 
couraged by  the  Government  till  to  day  domestic  mills  satisfy  all  our 
demands.  Silk,  woolen,  and  cotton  manufactories  have  been  estab- 
lished, and  have  become  independent;  but  the  great  textile  material 
that  furnishes  the  cheapest  and  most  necessary  of  all  carrying  medi- 
ums, and  does  not  compete  with  other  fabrics  any  more  than  cotton 
does  with  wool,  but  has  an  independent  sphere  of  usefulness,  this  has 
been  given  to  foreign  capital  and  foreign  labor,  while  thousands  of  our 
people  and  millions  of  dollars  are  waiting  to  establish  it  here  if  the 
Government  will  but  give  them  an  opportunity  to  do  so. 

Allow  us  to  refer  you  again  to  our  communication  of  the  5th  instant, 
which  suggested  a specific  duty  per  ounce  on  burlaps  and  yarns  (1) 
because  it  is  the  only  way  to  prevent  undervaluation  ; (2)  because 
such  a duty  equitably  determined  lays  the  only  substantial  and  sure 
foundation  upon  which  to  rest  the  walls  of  future  American  burlap  man- 
ufactories. 

We  shall  be  pleased  to  answer  further  inquiries  as  best  we  can,  and 
remain,  dear  sir, 

Yours,  respectfully, 

WM.  LYALL, 

Treasurer . 


[The  Eureka  Fire  Hose  Company,  linen  hose .] 

^New  York,  September  4,  1885. 

Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  In  accordance  with  the  invitation  extended  by  you  to  the 
manufacturers  of  the  country,  to  state  their  views  with  respect  to  the 
operation  of  the  tariff  in  its  relations  to  the  classes  of  goods  which  they 
severally  manufacture,  we  would  respectfully  submit  for  your  consider- 
ation the  following  statement  of  facts  relating  to  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  “flux,  canvas,  or  linen  hydraulic  hose.”  That  such  hose  is  in- 
voiced by  manufacturers  in  Great  Britaiu  to  tfieir  agents  in  this  coun- 
try at  a rate  which  is  below  the  market  rate  iu  England,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  the  market  of  the  United  States  an  outlet  for  their  sur- 
plus products,  we  believe  that  the  report  or  the  United  States  Treas- 
ury agent,  Col.  George  C.  Tichnor,  in  October,  1884, who  investigated  this 
question  in  England, will  fully  demonstrate,  and  itisour  present  intention 
and  endeavor  to  make  it  plain  to  you  that  from  the  prices  at  which  these 
goods  are  sold  iu  this  country  such  must  necessarily  be  the  case.  We 
will  first  show  by  letters  and  invoices  from  reputable  yarn  manufact- 
urers (which  we  auuex)  what  has  been  the  prevailing  price  of  flax  hose- 
yarns  in  Great  Britain  during  the  present  season.  The  B quality  of  one 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


101 


manufacturer  about  corresponds  with  th^  Iso.  1 quality  of  the  other,  and 
these  qualities  are  as  low  as  can  be  used  economically  iu  the  manufact- 
ure of  a good  marketable  grade  of  hose,  and  are  as  poor  as  any  reputa 
bie  yarn-maker  desires  to  sell.  We  tried  during  the  past  year  some  ol 
the  next  grade  lower,  but  found  that  owing  to  the  excessive  waste  from 
dirt  and  its  inferiority  in  strength  the  cost  of  the  hose  was  even 
more  than  when  the  usual  quality  of  13  or  No.  1 was  used.  Messrs. 
Watson  & Shield  and  Messrs.  Richards  & Co.  are  b th  very  large  man- 
ufacturers of  yarn,  and  we  are  contideut  will  sell  to  us  as  low  as  any 
English  manufacturer  can  buy.  We  also  buy  B quality  yarns  of 
Messrs.  Marshall  & Co.,  of  Leeds,  through  the  agency  in  New 
York.  Their  prices  are  duty  paid,  but  correspond  to  those  of 
others.  It  necessary  we  can  furnish  additional  proof  to  establish  the 
fact  that  11  pence  per  pound  has  been  the  lowest  market  price  for  a 
fair  quality  of  hose  yarn  during  the  past  season.  The  usual  weight  of 
2£-iuch  hose  of  the  quality  referred  to  in  this  statement  is  not  less  than 
64  pounds  per  hundred  yards,  and  the  shrinkage  in  weight  of  yarn  and 
waste  iu  manufacture  is  not  less  than  3 per  cent.,  or  say  (>G  pounds  are 
required  for  each  100  yards  of  hose  woven,  making  the  cost  ot  material 
per  100  yards  726  pence.  We  have  endeavored  to  procure  statements 
from  British  manufacturers  of  their  estimates  of  the  cost  of  manufacture 
per  yard  of  this  quality  of  hose,  and  directly  and  indirectly  we  have 
received  several  such  estimates,  the  lowest  of  which  was  2 pence  per 
yard.  Probably  the  most  reliable  statement  of  all  was  one  which  we 
received  from  an  English  manufacturing  concern,  who,  ostensibly  pro- 
posing to  commence  the  manufacture  of  hose,  wrote  to  the  makers  of 
the  loom  chiefly  used  by  the  English  hose  manufacturers,  asking  those 
makers  to  quote  their  prices  for  looms  and  to  furnish  them  with  a de- 
tail statement  of  the  production  of  those  looms,  the  cost  of  manufact- 
ure of  hose,  profits,  &c. 

The  loom  maker’s  estimate  was  2J  pence  per  yard  for  labor,  power, 
maintenance,  &c.  We  will,  however,  for  our  present  purpose,  adopt  2 
pence  per  yard  as  the  estimated  cost,  that  being,  we  believe,  the  lowest 
-price  for  which  it  is  possible  to  produce  the  hose.  Oue  hundred  yards, 
therefore,  would  cost  200  pence  to  manufacture,  which,  added  to  726 
pence,  the  cost  of  material,  makes 926  pence  per  100  yards  as  the  actual 
cost  of  2^-inch  hose  manufactured  iu  Great  Britain. 

This  2J  inch  hose  has  been  imported  into  this  country  during  the 
present  season  invoiced  at  2s.  (id.  per  yard,  less  70  per  cent.,  and  fre- 
quently at  65  and  5 per  cent,  discount,  when  a discount  of  50  and  10 
per  cent,  from  list  prices  is  a fair  average  discount  alio  ed  by  manufact 
urers  there  for  home  market.  One  hundred  yards,  at  2s.  Gd.  per  yard, 
equals  3,000  pence,  and  less  70  per  cent,  equals  900  pence  per  100  yards, 
or  26  pence  per  100  yards  less  than  the  actual  cost  of  manufacture  in 
Great  Britain,  based  upon  the  lowest  estimate  of  cost.  Better  qualities 
of  yarn  cost  about  13  J pence  per  pound,  and  the  hose  made  from  these  quali- 
ties of  yarn  is  manufactured  in  Great  Britain  exclusively  upon  hand- 
looms,  and  consequently  costs  very  much  more  to  produce  than  the  lower 
grades.  The  foregoing  statementof  facts,  which  we  know  the  mostcare- 
lul  investigation  of  the  subject  that  may  be  made  will  fully  sustain,  dem 
onstrates  that  there  must  necessarily  be  crookedness  somewhere,  which 
consists  in  invoicing  their  products  for  this  market  through  special  agen- 
cies at  a much  greater  discount  from  price  lists  than  those  allowed  iu 
their  home  markets;  therefore  placing  their  goods  here,  upon  which  duty 
is  paid,  far  below  the  market  value  there.  We  do  not  wish  to  be  under- 
stood as  advocating  a policy  of  either  free  trade  or  protection,  but  simply 


102  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

one  which  will  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  foreign  manufacturers,  feeling 
confident  of  our  ability  to  take  care  of  ourselves  under  any  just  law  prop- 
erly enforced*,  but  it  appears  only  justice  to  American  hose  manufact- 
urers either  that  they  should  receive  their  raw  material  duty  free,  and 
be  thereby  enabled  to  compete  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  or  upon 
the  other  hand,  such  duty  should  be  imposed  upon  foreign-made  hose 
as  will  give  the  American  manufacturers  a slight  advantage  in  the 
home  market.  Of  course  it  is  understood  by  you  that  the  present  tariff 
would  afford  hose  manufacturers  no  protection,  even  were  it  possible 
to  collect  it  fairly  upon  foreign  hose,  as  the  rate  of  duty  upon  yarn  and 
the  manufactured  hose  are  equal , the  yarn  being  made  in  Great  Britain 
from  flax  grown  in  Russia. 

We  have  omitted  any  reference  to  costs  of  freight,  consul  fees,  dis- 
count for  cash,  &c.,  as  they  are  about  the  same  x^er  pound  upon  yarn 
and  hose.  This  company  possesses  imx^roved  machinery  and  facilities 
for  manufacturing  flax  hose  equal  to  those  of  any  hose  manufacturer  in 
the  world,  our  machinery  enabling  us  to  overcome  to  a great  extent  our 
disadvantage  in  the  price  of  labor;  but  notwithstanding  all  our  advan- 
tages, we  are  unable,  in  consequence  of  foreign  competition  and  under- 
valuation, to  do  much  more  than  tox>rocure  a retail  trade  in  this  class 
of  hose. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing  facts,  we  resided  fully  submit  that  a 
specific  duty  per  pound  of  hose  seems  to  us  the  fairest  means  of  col- 
lecting a duty  upon  these  goods,  and  such  tax  should  be  high  enough 
to  protect  American  manufacturers  in  all  grades  of  hose;  and  not  only 
to  do  that,  but  we  also  think  that  while  the  tax  upon  our  raw  material 
is  maintained,  thereby  prohibiting  us  from  entering  foreign  markets, 
we  should  be  entitled  to  some  benefits  from  the  operations  of  the  tariff 
as  compensation  for  that  disadvantage.  A specific  duty  that  would 
equal  the  present  tariff  upon  the  best  qualities  of  hose,  would  be  not 
less  than  25  cents  per  pound  of  hose,  and  it  seems  to  us  that  such  a rate 
upon  all  grades  of  hose  would  be  no  more  than  American  hose  manu- 
facturers are  justly  entitled  to  receive  whenever  a revision  of  tariff  laws 
should  be  undertaken;  and  in  the  mean  time  we  would  respectfully  peti- 
tion that,  if  imssible,  such  ruling  shall  be  made  under  present  laws  as 
will  prohibit  the  foreign  article  from  being  sold  in  the  United  States  at 
a price  less  than  that  prevailing  in  the  Euglish  markets.  We  there- 
fore recommend  for  amended  tariff*  legislation  the  following:  That  “flax, 
canvas,  or  linen  hydraulic  hose”  shall  pay  a duty  of  25  cents  per  x>ound. 
Respectfully, 

EUREKA  FIRE  HOSE  COMPANY, 
JUNIUS  SCHENCK, 

Secretary  and  General  Agent. 

The  undersigned  manufacturers  fully  concur  in  the  above. 

NEW  YORK  BELTING  AND  PACKING  COMPANY, 
By  HENRY  G.  HERKNER. 

RUSSELL  MANUFACTURING  COMPANY, 

E.  DEMING,  Treasurer. 

G.  A.  EBERLE. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


1 03 


[Inclosure.] 

[From  Richards  & Co.] 


To  Mr.  J.  van  D.  Reed, 

York  Club,  8 St.  James  Square , London  : 


Aberdeen,  April  4,  1885. 


Dear  Sir:  We  are  in  receipt  of  your  favor  of  2d  instant,  and  in  reply,  as  we  are 
anxious  to  secure  your  orders,  we  will  in  this  case  sacrifice  the  Id.,  which  lies  between 
us,  and  enter  for  trial  1 ton  of  14  Lea  fiax  B 3-ply,  boiled,  at  11  d.  per  pound,  finished 
weight,  less  2£  per  cent,  discount  and  30  days  f.  o.  b.  Glasgow.  We  are  quite  sure  that 
when  you  have  tried  this  yarn  you  will  find  that  it  is  well  worth  11  id.  per  pound 
We  are  very  desirous  that  you  should  try  our  yarn  finished  as  we  finish  it.  You 
will  find  it  to  work  easily  and  be  very  economical  in  the  working. 

H.  RICHARDS  & CO. 


[In  closure.! 

[From  Richards  & Co.,  flax  and  jute  spinners,  linen  manufacturers,  bleacher's  and  dyers.] 


To  Mr.  J.  van  D.  Reed, 

York  Club,  8 St.  James  Square,  London,  April  2,  1885  ; 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  favor  of  the  31st  ultimo  we  beg  to  confirm  having  wired 
you  yesterday  afternoon,  as  follows  : 

“ Letter  received ; will  meet  you  at  eleven ; one  farthing,  as  we  are  anxious  for  you 
to  try  the  yarn.” 

As  you  are  aware  there  has  been  a heavy  advance  on  yarns  since  November,  and  we 
could  not  possibly  do  this  yarn  at  11  pence  per  pound,  even  11|  pence  is  a very  bare 
price,  but  as  we  are  anxious  for  you  to  give  our  yarns  a trial  we  will  meet  you  by 
entering  at  11^  pence  per  pound,  and  hope  to  be  favored  with  particulars  of  your 
order  in  course. 


Yours,  truly, 


RICHARDS  & CO. 


[Inclosure.] 


To  Messrs.  Eureka  Fire  Hose  Company, 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  : 


Dundee,  June  8,  1885. 


Gentlemen  : We  are  in  receipt  of  your  esteemed  favor  of  26th  ult.,  and  have  en- 
tered you  for  1 ton  14  Lea  flax  line,  3-ply  No.  1,  at  11  pence  per  pound  finished,  which 
will  be  sent  on  at  once  (per  first  steamer).  Your  further  commands  will  receive  our 
prompt  and  careful  attention. 

Yours  faithfully, 

WATSON  & SHIELD. 


[Inclosure.] 

Dundee,  August  7,  1885. 

To  Messrs.  Eureka  Fire  Hose  Company,  Brooklyn: 

Gentlemen:  We  are  in  receipt  of  your  esteemed  favor  of  28th  ult.,  and  have  en- 
tered you  for  2 tons  14  Lea  flax  line,  3-ply  warp  No.  1,  finished ; 1 ton  14  Lea  flax  line, 
9-ply  weft  No.  1,  finished,  at  11  pence  per  pound  finished. 

The  3-ply  will  be  shipped  per  first  steamer,  and  the  9-ply  will  follow  with  the  next. 
Regarding  the  price,  we  really  could  not  enter  them  at  less ; in  fact,  we  are  selling  to 
you  lower  than  any  other  firm,  and  we  are  sure  you  will  find  them  really  first-class 
value.  Will  see  that  the  goods  are  made  up  in  as  long  lengths  and  as  few  knots  as 
possible. 

We  are,  gentlemen,  yours  faithfully, 


WATSON  & SHIELD. 


104  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY 
[The  Cable  Flax  Mills,  twines,  yarns,  and  threads.'] 

Schaghticoke,  near  Troy,  N.  Y., 

July  28,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Secretary , 

Treasury  Department,  Washington,  D.  G. 

Sir  : In  reply  to  yours  of  21st  instant,  I venture  the  opiniou  that  the 
only  way  to  prevent  the  evasion  of  our  tariff  laws,  whether  the  tax  is 
specific  or  ad  valorem,  is  by  an  impartial  administration  of  the  laws  as 
enacted,  always  giving  the  benefit  of  any  doubts  as  to  the  real  meaning 
of  the  law  not  to  foreign  but  to  domestic  industry. 

The  manufacture  of  flax,  hemp  and  jute  goods  in  our  country  depends 
almost  entirely  upon  the  imposition  of  a tax  or  tariff  upon  imported  goods, 
sufficient  to  cover  the  additional  cost  of  labor  in  our  American  nulls. 
For  twenty  years  last  past  we  have  paid  and  are  now  paying  an  aver- 
age of  two  or  three  times  as  much  per  day  for  labor  as  our  European 
competitors  pay.  In  particular  kinds  of  our  work,  requiring  long  ex- 
perience and  skill,  we  are  paying  as  many  dollars  per  day  as  European 
competitors  pay  shillings  sterling,  or  about  four  times  the  wages  paid 
in  Europe, 

Notwithstanding  this  undeniable  fact,  we  fail  to  secure  such  legisla- 
tion as  will  u let  us  loose n in  the  laudable  endeavor  to  supply  the  wants 
of  our  own  people  with  flax,  hemp,  and  jute  goods.  In  jute  goods  alone 
we  imported,  in  1888,  $11,281,523.24  in  value,  or  about  403,000  bales  of 
raw  jute,  weighing  400  pounds  each  ; and  there  were  manufactured  in 
that  year  in  our  country  only  63,000  bales.  But  if  all  the  jute  goods 
consumed  in  our  country  were  manufactured  here,  it  w«mld  require  a 
capital  of  $30,000,000  and  give  employment  to  25,000  work-people. 
In  the  flax  industry  we  are  in  a still  worse  position.  The  total  exports 
of  linen  piece-goods  from  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  to  all 
peoples  in  1880  were  162,247,300  yards,  at  a value  of  $23,321,203,  of 
which  78,169,400  yards,  at  a value  of  $11,335,854,  or  very  nearly  one- 
half,  came  to  the  United  States.  We  consume  nearly  as  many  linen 
piece-goods  as  all  the  rest  of  the  world  outside  of  Great  Britain,  because 
we  are  prosperous,  and  we  should  not  remove  the  basis  of  our  prosper- 
ity by  reducing  wages.  How,  then,  can  we  supply  ourselves  with  linen 
piece-goods?  Simply  by  imposing  a little  more  tax  upon  the  imported 
goods,  to  cover  the  higher  cost  of  American  labor.  Grant  this,  and  in 
a short  time  we  will  make  our  own  flax,  hemp,  and  jute  goods,  and  do- 
mestic competition  will  very  soon  put  prices  of  these  very  goods  lower 
than  at  present. 

But  our  foreign  competitors  are  not  content  with  their  victory  in  the 
capital  at  Washington.  Our  tariff  taxes,  as  soon  as  authorized,  are 
more  or  less  evaded  in  the  interest  of  importers,  and  against  the  inter- 
ests of  American  labor  and  American  prosperity.  I do  not  assert  that 
our  officials  are  influenced  by  bribery  with  money,  but  I do  assert  that 
our  tariff*  laws  are  evaded. 

Our  officials  become  personally  acquainted  with  importers  in  the  daily 
routine  of  business,  and  they  seldom  see  American  manufacturers  and 
laborers  unless  we  appear  to  protest  against  their  decisions  and  rulings. 

It  is  therefore  easy  to  understand  how,  little  by  little,  our  oflicials  give 
way  to  the  friendly  pressure  of  Europeans,  and  are  thus  influenced  to 
make  these  auti- American  decisions. 

Specific  duties  cannot  be  so  easily  evaded  as  ad  valorem  duties,  but 
it  is  my  candid  opiniou  that  specific  duties  have  been  shamefully  evaded, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  105 

with  the  full  knowledge  and  consent  of  officials  who  have  sworn  solemnly 
to  execute  the  laws. 

The  duty  upon  flax  is  $20  per  ton.  The  duty  upon  tow  is  $10  per  ton. 
Flax  is  long  flbered  and  kept  straight.  Tow,  the  lefuse  of  flax,  is  short- 
fibered  and  not  kept  straight.  Flax  is  usually  tied  in  bundles  of  about 
100  pounds  each,  and  tow  is  pressed  in  bales  of  about  500  pounds  each. 
Hundreds  of  tons  of  flax  have  been  entered  as  tow  at  $10  per  ton  duty 
during  the  past  three  or  four  years,  by  being  laid  straight  into  tow 
presses  and  pressed  into  500-pouud  bales,  like  tow.  Although  this  was 
a gross  outrage  upon  every  American  farmer,  and  every  loyal  American 
flax  spinner,  it  went  on,  our  officials  knowing  full  well  that  they  were 
passing  flax  and  not  tow. 

Previous  to  the  last  change  in  our  tariff,  in  1883,  the  duty  upon  hemp 
yarn  was  5 cents  per  pound,  and  the  duty  upon  “ linen  yarn  for  carpets  ” 
was  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Under  this  law  great  quantities  of  hemp 
yarn,  at  a cost  of  about  11  cents  per  pound  in  Europe,  was  admitted  at 
30  per  cent,  as  u linen  yarn  for  carpets,”  although  our  officials  acknowl- 
edged that  they  were  fully  aware  that  the  yarn  was  hemp  yarn,  with 
out  a particle  of  flax  in  it. 

From  these  two  illustrations  you  will  see  how  specific  duties  have 
been  evaded  in  our  line  of  business.  I have  no  personal  positive  knowl- 
edge of  evasions  of  duties  upon  linen  (manufactured)  goods.  I will, 
however,  venture  the  opinion  that  such  evasions  are  continually  and 
successfully  carried  on.  This  can  be  more  easily  done  where  the  same 
house  is  located  in  the  United  States  and  also  in  a foreign  city.  I be- 
lieve, however,  that  our  consular  agents  at  the  foreign  shipping  ports 
and  our  appraisers  at  the  American  port  can,  if  they  will,  stop  such 
evasion  at  ouce  and  keep  it  stopped. 

Let  the  consular  agent  refuse  to  lend  himself  to  be  the  medium  of  false 
swearing  by  the  shipper,  and  the  evasion  is  quite  impossible.  Let  the 
appraiser  at  the  port  of  entry  refuse  to  pass  upon  undervalued  or  false- 
named  merchandise  and  the  evasion  is  impossible,  although  infidelity 
may  have  been  practiced  at  the  foreign  shipping  port.  Although  it 
might  not  be  proven  in  court,  yet  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  nearly 
every  evasion  of  our  customs  taxes  is  carried  through  with  full  knowl- 
edge of  one  or  more  of  our  officials,  sworn  solemnly  to  execute  the  law 
which  is  evaded. 

Iuclosed  herewith  you  will  find  a small  sample  each  of  flax,  hemp, 
and  jute,  also  flax  tow.  The  cost  of  producing  a ton  of  American  flax 
of  average  quality  is  about  $250.  The  duty  upon  foreign  flax  is  $20  per 
ton,  which  is,  and  has  been,  entirely  inadequate  to  insure  the  cultiva- 
tion of  flax-fiber  in  our  own  country  for  our  own  use.  The  duty  should 
be  increased  to  $60  per  ton  as  a stimulus  to  the  American  agriculturist. 
The  average  duty  upon  flax  is  8 per  cent.,  upon  hemp  20  per  cent.,  and 
upon  jute  30  per  cent. 

You  will  find  herewith  iuclosed  a few  samples  of  twines,  yarns,  and 
threads  manufactured  by  our  company.  We  make  about  150  different 
kinds,  from  both  domestic  and  foreign  flax  and  hemp,  all  the  jute  being 
imported. 

The  duty  upon  threads  and  twines  is  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

The  duty  upon  yarns  is  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

We  weave  no  linen  cloth,  because  the  duty  upon  such  goods  is  not 
sufficient  to  cover  additional  cost  of  the  added  labor  of  weaving,  bleach- 
ing, and  finishing  the  cloth.  Let  us  have  a little  more  protection  (say 
20  per  cent,  more)  than  at  present  upon  woven  linen  goods  and  the 
weaving  of  linen  cloths  will  be  at  once  commenced  in  our  country. 


106  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Our  business  requires  very  substantial  and  expensive  buildings  and 
delicate,  rapid-running  machinery. 

We  have  over  $200,000  invested  in  buildings,  water  power,  and 
chinery. 

One  huudred  pounds  of  twine,  which  sells  for  $20,  requires : value 
of  fiber,  $13  (mostly  labor  and  cost  in  growing  and  cleaning) ; cost  of 
labor  (in  mill),  $4;  operating  expenses, including  interest,  $2.50  (would 
be  one-half  to  two-thirds  less  in  Europe). 

While  a specific  duty  upon  twines,  yarns,  and  threads  might  be  de- 
sirable to  aid  in  preventing  undervaluation,  it  would  be  very  difficult 
to  make  a schedule  for  linen  goods  which  would  prove  better  than  the 
present.  We  want  enough  duty  to  protect  our  higher  labor  cost ; and 
as  there  is  more  labor  upon  finer  kinds  of  twine,  yarn,  thread,  and  cloth, 
the  actual  duty  should  be  fixed  accordingly,  and  a specific  duty  would 
be  quite  as  easily  evaded  as  an  ad  valorem. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

E.  A.  HARTSHORN, 
President  and  Treasurer  Cable  Flax  Mills. 


[J.  R.  Leeson  & Co.,  linen  thread.'] 

Boston,  November  6,  1885. 

Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  The  undersigned  beg  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  the  circular 
dated  July  28,  1885,  requesting  our  views  upon  the  question  of  substi- 
tuting specific  for  ad  valorem  duties  upon  linen  thread  and  twines.  We 
should  have  given  an  earlier  response,  but  desired  first  to  make  com- 
parisons with  the  German  and  French  rates  and  to  consider  the  mat- 
ter in  detail.  In  submitting  for  your  consideration  a schedule  of  the 
duties  we  recommend  we  will  frankly  state  our  position.  We  are 
amongst  the  largest  importers  of  linen  thread  in  this  country.  Our  in- 
terests should  therefore  be  equal  to  those  of  any  importing  firm  in  having 
fair  and  reasonable  rates  of  duty  imposed  upon  such  merchandise.  We 
are  emphatically  in  favor  of  specific  rates  when  the  same  can  be  ap- 
plied equitably. 

Upon  the  present  basis — 40  per  cent,  ad  valorem — on  thread  we  have 
for  years  been  at  a disadvantage,  arising  from  the  fact  that  all,  or  nearly 
all,  the  British  linen-thread  manufacturers,  excepting  the  firm  from 
whom  we  purchase  our  threads,  invoice  threads  to  America  at  higher 
discounts  thau  any  known  in  the  English  home  market.  We  were  told 
by  the  late  chief  appraiser  of  dry-goods  at  this  port  that  if  we  brought 
in  our  threads  with  higher  discounts  he  should  pass  our  entries,  as  he 
passed  the  invoices  of  other  importers,  in  accordance  with  the  practice 
at  the  port  of  New  York. 

As,  however,  we  knew  that  no  higher  discounts  than  our  own  were 
allowed  in  the  English  market,  we  could  not  take  advantage  of  this 
permission  in  advauce,  the  result  being  that  we  have  paid  duties  upon 
a higher  level  of  prices.,  as  we  understand  it,  than  the  basis  allowed  the 
importers  of  other  makes  of  linen  threads.  For  obvious  reasons  we 
favor  a specific  rate,  provided,  however,  that  the  same  be  applied  upon 
correct  principles. 

We  are  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  a graded  basis  should  govern  the 
classification  of  linen  threads. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


107 


The  German  system  of  one  rate  over  all  cannot  be  adopted  without 
entailing  serious  injury  upon  the  manufacturing  interests  of  this  coun- 
try. We  consider  the  system  now  in  use  in  Fiance  preferable,  (1)  be- 
cause under  that  method  the  incidence  of  the  tax  is  more  evenly  dis- 
tributed; (2)  because  it  will  prevent  undervaluation  and  fraud  ; (3) 
because  it  is  best  adapted  to  the  protection  of  the  just  interests  of  linen- 
thread  manufacturers  in  the  United  States. 

In  the  schedule  which  we  herewith  submit  the  basis  adopted  is  upon 
the  same  system  as  the  French.  The  rates  suggested  are  taken  from 
the  price-list  now  current  and  issued  in  1880  by  the  makers  we  pur- 
chase of,  Messrs.  Finlay  son,  Bousfield  & Co.,  Scotland.  As  this  price- 
list  has  been  unaltered  for  five  years,  and  is  similar  to  the  lists  of  other 
standard  thread-makers,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  a fair  average  of  actual 
current  values.  We  have  taken  an  average  of  prices  upon  such  kinds 
and  qualities  as  are  most  used  in  this  country  at  the  lowest  wholesale 
market  rates  known  in  England.  We  have  given  the  duty  at  these 
prices  in  specific  rates  equivalent  to  the  present  rate  of  40  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  in  such  away  as  to  guard  the  interests  of  the  Government  by 
the  prevention  of  fraudulent  evasions  of  the  duty,  and  at  the  same  time 
encourage  the  importation  of  foreign  made  threads,  while  protecting,  to 
a reasonable  extent,  the  interests  of  the  domestic  linen-thread  manu- 
facturers. The  basis  we  suggest  is  simple,  easily  understood,  and  is 
fair  to  all  interested. 

In  addition  to  our  importations  we  are  the  agents  for  the  sale  of  the 
product  of  the  flax-mills,  Grafton,  Mass.,  which  are  owned  and  operated 
by  Finlaysou,  Bousfield  &Co.,  of  Scotland.  Our  acquaintance  with  the 
conditions  of  thread  manufacture  in  England  and  in  America  should 
enable  us  to  deal  impartially  with  both.  As  a matter  of  fact,  it  is 
equally  important  to  us  that  the  importation  of  linen  thread  should  be 
stimulated  by  fair  and  equitable  rates  of  duty,  and  that  the  growth  of 
linen-thread  manufacture  in  the  United  States  shall  be  encouraged 
thiough  the  collection  of  reasonable  impost  dues.  Having  both  these 
ends  in  view,  we  have  gone  over  the  entire  ground  in  regard  to  linen 
thread  duties.  The  schedule  which  we  beg  to  submit  has  been  prepared 
with  great  care.  It  is  simple  and  effectual  lrom  every  standpoint-,  and 
we  strongly  recommend  it  lor  adoption  intact,  without  modification  or 
change  in  any  particular. 

Before  closing  we  earnestly  suggest  that  in  any  future  tariff  legisla- 
tion clause  T.  I new,  347,  which  was  injected  into  Schedule  J in  the 
closing  hours  of  the  session  of  Congress  which  enacted  the  act  March  3, 
1883,  be  expunged.  This  will  leave  the  classification  of  linen  thread 
and  its  correlatives  as  provided  for  in  clause  T.  I new,  336,  Schedule 
J,  for  “flax  or  linen  thread,”  &c. 

This  last  clause  was  the  sole  provision  for  the  articles  therein  enumer- 
ated prior  to  the  act  March  3,  1883,  and  was  always  sufficient  for  all 
practical  purposes.  The  files  of  the  Treasury  Department  will  indicate 
the  difficulties  with  which  the  Department  has  had  to  contend  as  a 
direct  result  of  the  existence  of  the  new  provision  referred  to. 

We  beg  to  append  the  schedule  we  have  prepared,  and,  with  great 
respect,  we  remain,  sir, 

Yours,  faithfully, 


J.  K.  LEESON  & CO, 


108  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

SCHEDULE  OF  SPECIFIC  RATES  ON  FLAX  OR  LINEN  THREAD,  ETC. 


The  rates  should  be  differential,  i.  e.,  graded  according  to  numbers. 

Note. — The  foundation  of  lengths  in  the  linen  trade  is  a length  of  300  yards  per 
pound  of  yarn  in  No.  1. 

For  twisted  threads— i.  e.,  yarns  doubled,  trebled,  &c .,  twisted  together  to  form  a 
cord — divide  the  lengths  of  single  yarn  by  the  number  of  strands  in  the  thread. 
Basis. — Linen,  flax,  or  hemp  yarn,  measuring,  per  pound — 


Specific  rates. 

Spool  threads 
by  weigfct, 
per  lb. 

All  other 
th leads  by 
weight,  and 
yarn' (singles) 
per  lb. 

1st  stage,  No.  1 to  No.  10,  varn,  300  to  3,000  yards  per  lb 

Cents. 

24  j 
32 
43 
57 

73 

Cents. 

( 16 

] 17 

( 18 

22 

28 

37 

53 

67 

2d  stage,  above  No.  10  to  No.  15,  yarn,  abov’e3,000  to  4,500  yards  per  lb 

3d  stage,  above  No.  15  to  No.  20,  yarn,  above  4,500  to  (5,000  yards  per  lb 

4th  stage,  above  No.  20  to  No.  30,  yarn,  above  (5,000  to  i),(  00  yards  per  lb. . 
Btli  stage,  above  No.  30  to  No.  40,  yarn,  above  9.000  to  12,000  yards  per  lb. 
6th  stage,  above  No.  40  to  No.  CO,  yarn,  above  12,000  to  18  000  yards  per  lb 
7th  stage,  above  No.  60  to  No.  80,  yarn,  above  18,000  to  24,000  yards  per  lb. 
8th  stage,  above  No.  80  and  upwards,  yarn,  above  24,000  and  upwards 
yards  per  lb 

Linen  thread  on  leigth  spools. 


Y ards  per  spool. 


100. 

150. 

200. 

300. 

400. 

500. 

Rate  per  gross,  2-cord  

Rate  per  gross,  3-cord 

' $1  10 
1 1 40 

$1  58 
2 03 

$1  95 
: 2 55 

$2  68 
3 89 

$3  77 
4 99 

$4  62 
6 20 

[The  same.] 


Boston,  November 6 , 1885. 

Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Washington.  D.  C. : 

Sir:  Referring  to  the  Treasury  circular  sent  to  the  Grafton  Flax 
Mills,  asking  for  informntion  in  regard  to  linen -thread  manufacturing, 
we  beg  to  submit  briefly  our  replies  upon  the  main  points  suggested 
therein. 

The  Grafton  (Massachusetts)  Flax  Mills  are  owned  and  operated  by 
Messrs.  Finlayson,  Bousfield  & Co.,  of  Johnstone,  Scotland,  who  are 
extensive  manufacturers  of  linen  threads  at  Johnstone.  It  will  be  seen 
that  the  operating  of  a mjll  in  Scotland  as  well  as  in  the  United  States, 
producing  similar  articles,  gives  an  iusight  to  the  relative  cost  of  manu- 
facture which  could  hardly  be  obtained  by  outside  inquiries.  Before 
noting  the  points  mentioned  in  the  circular,  we  desire  to  express  our 
views  upon  the  question  of  the  duty  on  flax,  which  is  the  raw  material 
used  at  Grafton.  We  are  unaware  of  the  existence  of  any  American 
grown  flax  which  could  be  used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  threads  made 
at  Grafton;  hence,  whatever  duty  is  imposed  upon  flax,  while  being  of 
no  benefit  to  any  interest  here,  serves  as  a clog  upon  the  linen-thread 
industry  of  the  United  States.  So  far  as  we  can  judge  from  existing 
circumstances  we  shall  always  have  to  import  flax  suitable  to  the  re- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


109 


qnirements  of  the  Grafton  Flax  Mills.  This  flax  we  import  in  the  heckled 
state,  the  flax  thus  dressed  being  known  as  “dressed  line.”  The  flax  is 
merely  subjected  to  the  process  of  heckling,  a system  of  combing,  with 
the  object  of  separating  the  long  from  the  short  fiber.  The  long  fiber 
becomes  known  as  dressed  line;  the  short  fiber  is  called  tow.  As  we 
use  only  long  fiber  in  our  threads,  there  is  clearly  no  object  in  shipping 
the  short  fiber,  or  tow,  to  Gratton.  Long  fiber  flax,  or  dressed  line, 
therefore,  is  alone  sent  to  the  Grafton  Mills,  that  only  being  used  in 
making  the  threads  there  manufactured.  In  other  words,  this  dressed 
line  flax  is  our  raw  material,  the  only  raw  material  we  use,  or  could 
under  any  circumstances  use  as  the  mills  are  at  present  equipped.  We 
would  earnestly  urge  that  our  raw  material  be  given  to  us  free  from  all 
duty,  and  that  the  discrimination  as  at  present  existing  in  the  tariff  as 
against  dressed  flax  be  discontinued  in  all  future  legislation.  When  it 
is  remembered  that  the  dressed  line  is  the  ouly  kind  of  flax  that  can  be 
used  at  Grafton,  and  that  no  flax  suited  to  our  purposes  is  obtainable 
in  the  United  States,  it  is  self-evident  that  whatever  the  duty  imjjosed 
on  this  flax  is  a direct  blow  at  the  flax-spinning  industries  of  this  coun- 
try, and  that  the  only  class  benefited  by  such  duty  is  the  foreigu  manu- 
facturer. Having  thus  briefly  indicated  our  views  upon  the  question  of 
free  raw  material,  we  now  offer  such  information  as  is  at  our  command 
on  the  chief  items  enumerated  in  the  circular  of  the  Department. 

Wages. — The  wages  paid  throughout  all  the  manufacturing  depart- 
ments at  Grafton  are  fully  double  what  are  paid  at  the  Johnstone  Mills 
for  exactly  the  same  work.  In  many  cases  the  Grafton  raies  are  200 
per  centum  greater,  and  it  is  certainly  within  the  mark  to  state  that 
the  wages  at  Grafton  are  double  those  paid  in  Johnstone  for  the  same 
work  and  time. 

Machinery. — The  machinery  at  Grafton  was  all  imported,  as  no  flax 
machinery  such  as  is  there  used  is,  to  our  knowledge,  made  in  the 
United  States.  The  duty  on  the  machinery  was  35  per  cent.,  and  on  the 
brass  and  steel  portions  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  With  transit  and 
other  incidental  charges  added,  the  cost  at  Grafton  was  50  per  cent, 
higher  than  in  Scotland. 

Buildings. — Such  experience  as  we  have  had  of  building  in  the  United 
States  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  a mill  here  costs  at  least  double  what 
the  same  mill  would  cost  in  Scotland.  With  buildings  and  machinery 
costing  100  per  cent,  higher,  it  will  be  seen  that  a mill  in  the  United 
States,  fully  equipped  for  running,  will  involve  double  the  capital  and 
interest  charges  of  an  establishment  in  Scotland. 

Supplies. — General  mill  supplies  are  as  a rule  dearer  at  Grafton  than 
at  Johnstone,  although  oils  are  somewhat  less  here;  but  on  the  whole, 
prices  here  for  supplies  are  higher  than  in  Scotland. 

Coal. — This  is  a very  important  item,  and  it  is  considerably  dearer  at 
Grafton  than  at  Johnstone.  Coal  has  never  been  lower  at  Grafton  than 
$4.50  per  ton,  while  at  Johnstone  a similar  quality  could  be  bought  for 
$1.25  to  $1.50  per  ton.  The  cost  of  coal  at  Grafton,  therefore,  will  be 
fully  three  times  the  cost  at  Johnstone. 

From  the  foregoing  it  will  be  seen  that  the  cost  of  manufacturing 
threads  at  Grafton  is  very  much  greater  than  in  Scotland:  (1)  the  duty 
of  5 to  7 per  cent,  on  the  raw  material  used  ; (2)  building  costs  100  per 
cent,  more;  (3)  machinery  costs  50  per  cent,  more;  (4)  coal  costs  200 
per  cent,  more ; (5)  wages  are  at  least  100  per  cent,  higher.  Under  such 
circumstances  a protective  duty  on  the  manufactured  thread  is  abso- 
lutely essential  to  the  existence  of  an  American  linen-thread  mill. 
Taking  into  consideration  all  the  various  items  of  increased  cost,  as 


110  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


enumerated,  we  are  fully  satisfied  that  any  reduction  of  the  present 
rate  of  duty  on  linen  thread,  which  is  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  would 
entail  the  most  serious  results  upon  linen -thread  manufacturing  in  the 
United  States,  and  would  make  it  extremely  difficult  for  domestic  thread 
manufacturers  to  hold  their  own  against  foreign-made  threads. 

We  beg  to  remain,  sir,  with  great  respect,  yours  faithfully, 

J.  B.  LEESON  & CO., 

Selling  Agents  for  Finlay  son , Bonsfield  & Co ., 

The  Flax  Mills , North  Grafton,  Mass. 


[Lowell  Manufacturing  Company,  carpets,  wool,  4c-] 

Paris,  October  1,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel.  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir  : In  response  to  a circular  of  July  last,  addressed  to  manu- 
facturers and  others  (one  of  which  was  sent  to  the  Lowell  Manufact- 
uring Company  (carpet  manufacturers),  of  which  I am  treasurer),  I am 
unable  to  enter  into  any  details  as  to  costs,  &c.,  owing  to  my  absence 
from  the  United  States  for  a few  months,  but  the  bearing  of  the  tariff 
on  the  making  of  carpets  has  been  thoroughly  stated  in  the  hearings 
before  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  last  winter,  and  before  the 
recent  change  in  the  tariff,  and  in  special  circular  of  the  carpet  manu- 
facturers to  the  Tariff  Commission.  Mr.  Charles.  F.  Fairbanks,  treasurer 
of  the  Bigelow  Carpet  Company,  Boston,  and  also  secretary  of  the  Car- 
pet Manufacturers’  Association,  and  Mr.  John  L.  Houston,  president  of 
the  Hartford  Carpet  Company  at  Thompsonville,  Conn,  (amoug  others), 
can  give  full  and  reliable  information,  and  have  probably  written  on 
the  subject.  Allow  me,  however,  to  offer  a few  general  suggestions  in 
response  to  the  circular. 

As  to  specific  duties  in  general,  it  seems  as  if  it  must  be  unnecessary 
to  say  a word  after  the  practical  experience  of  importers  and  customs 
officers  with  ad  valorem  duties.  Apart  from  the  statement  that  there 
are  various  articles  made  in  Europe  that  cannot  be  bought  at  all  in 
Europe,  because  the  makers  consign  them  all  to  their  own  agents  in 
the  United  States,  and  do  not  wish  to  have  any  quoted  price  in  Europe, 
it  is  simply  a matter  of  common  notoriety  that  sellers  here  very  gener- 
ally, and  ns  a matter  of  course,  offer  to  make  out  bills  for  one  half  of  the 
amount  actually  paid.  There  is  nothing  new  about  this.  I have  had 
such  an  offer  made  thirty  years  ago  as  well  as  this  summer,  and  was 
evidently  considered  a fool  for  declining  the  offer. 

The  variety  in  style  and  quality  of  articles,  and  the  difference  in  real 
value  of  articles  of  very  similar  appearance,  the  immense  and  compli- 
cated variety  of  modern  fabrics  makes  it  practically  impossible  to  avoid 
deception  and  fraud  under  an  ad  valorem  system,  at  least  to  a very 
great  extent. 

For  this  reason,  among  others,  it  was  urged  that  if,  in  spite  of  the 
wishes  of  all  manufacturers  of  carpets,  it  should  be  decided  to  establish 
for  them  an  ad  valorem  duty  only  (as  was  once  suggested)  that  it  should 
be  levied,  not  on  the  invoice  cost  but  on  some  fixed  value  the  average 
of  a considerable  number  of  years,  so  as  to  avoid  the  great  fluctuations 
in  value;  but  a specific  duty  per  yard  is  much  better.  It  also  puts  all 
ports  of  entry  on  an  equality.  The  views  of  appraisers  have  often  dif- 
differed  widely  at  different  ports. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


Ill 


The  duty  on  carpet  wool  is  in  terms  specific,  but  as  the  rates  differ 
as  the  foreign  value  is  above  or  not  above  12  cents,  a most  troublesome 
ad  valorem  element  is  really  involved.  As  a great  deal  of  carpet  w ool 
is  normally  close  to  the  dividing  point  in  value,  there  is  constant  diffi- 
culty and  an  enormous  temptation  to  misrepresent  the  real  cost  at  the 
foreign  port  of  shipment.  I believe  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  in 
many  cases  it  must  be  impossible  for  the  United  States  officers  to  ascer- 
tain whether  the  value  should  be  12  cents,  or  less  or  more,  and,  besides 
any  question  of  fraud  or  evasion,  it  is  out  of  the  question  even  for  an 
expert  to  decide  with  certainty  whether  a certain  lot  of  wrool  is  worth 
12  cents  or  12-J^.  The  difficulties  in  this  matter  are  perfectly  well 
understood  by  the  United  States  appraisers  at  Boston  and  New  York. 

But  I contend  that  there  should  be  no  duty  whatever  on  carpet  wools. 
It  is  well  known  that  this  particular  duty  was  imposed  for  the  sake  of 
revenue,  and  the  carpet  trade  depends  almost  entirely  for  its  supply  of 
raw  material  on  foreign  wools.  The  small  amount  of  domestic  wool 
used  for  the  carpet  trade  is  practically  from  what  might  be  called  wild 
sheep,  or  sheep  in  transition,  i.  e .,  the  raising  of  carpet  wool  is  not  pro- 
perly a domestic  industry;  it  takes  no  more  legs  or  stomach  to  raise 
wool  of  very  much  greater  value;  no  one  tries  to  raise  a.  small  ear  of 
corn  on  land  that  can  easily  produce  large  ones,  or  to  grow  a pound  of 
poor  wool  when  he  might  just  as  well  grow  two  or  three  pounds  of  good 
wool.  In  this  respect  carpet  wools  stand  on  a different  basis  from 
clothing  and  combing  wools. 

Under  the  conditions  of  the  tariff  of  1867,  as  applying  to  wool  and 
woolens,  a very  high  rate  of  duty  was  imposed  on  manufactured  arti- 
cles; but  this  high  rate,  while  it  gives  cause  for  much  complaint,  is 
very  largely  fictitious,  being  offset  to  a great  extent  by  the  enormous 
duties  levied  on  the  raw  materials  and  dye-stuffs,  &c.,  while  the  heavy 
duty  on  machinery  makes  the  cost  of  piant  vastly  more  here  than  in 
Europe. 

Taxes  in  Massachusetts,  and  in  most  other  States,  are  levied  on  both 
personal  and  fixed  capital  and  property— on  merchandise  and  credit,  as 
well  as  on  real  estate  and  machinery.  They  cannot  be  estimated  at  less 
than  1J  per  cent,  per  annum  on  the  full  value  of  the  whole  property.  As 
to  wages,  I suppose  it  may  be  said  in  general  that  they  are  from  25  to  100 
per  cent,  higher  in  the  worsted  trade  in  this  country  than  in  England  or 
on  the  continent  of  Europe,  and  may  average  at  least  35  to  50  per  cent, 
higher.  But  on  this  point  various  reliable  sets  of  figures  of  actual 
wages  have  been  collected  by  the  agents  of  the  Massachusetts  Bureau 
of  Labor  and  by  others. 

As  to  the  general  question  of  protection  and  of  tariff  rates,  it  may 
fairly  be  said  that  the  high  duties  (imposed  largely  owing  to  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  war  of  the  rebellion)  forced  the  growth  of  manufactures 
in  the  United  States,  and  that  it  is  now  only  lair  that  in  considering 
any  reduction  of  the  tariff  this  abnormal  growth  and  the  existing  con- 
ditions should  be  taken  into  account.  While  a large  net  reduction  of 
rates  would  cause  great  losses  to  the  owners  of  mills,  the  chief  distress 
would  fall  on  the  operatives,  as  it  would  seem  to  be  simply  una  voidable 
that  their  wages  would  have  to  be  largely  reduced ; there  would  be 
some  offset  to  this  reduction,  but  I cannot  see  that  it  would  be  of  any 
great  amount. 

Nevertheless,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  general  interest  of  the  country 
as  a whole  requires  a movement — cautious,  and  feeling  its  way — in  the 
direction  of  free  trade  with  all  the  world,  and  in  spite  of  the  large  in- 
terests I have  in  various  “protected”  industries,  I feel  decidedly  that 


112 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  TiTE  TREASURY. 


there  should  be  uo  advance  in  the  duties  ou  any  article  unless  it  be  to 
correct  an  error  or  an  accident.  The  first  step,  it  seems  to  me,  should 
be  the  freeing:  of  all  articles  of  food,  so  far  as  the  revenue  requirements 
will  allow,  and  of  all  raw  materials.  By  taking  the  duties  off  of  bread- 
stuffs,  animals  and  provisions,  carpet  wool,  at  least,  if  not  also  in  part 
on  other  wools,  fruits,  artificial  dyestuffs  and  chemicals,  and  some  of  the 
minor  articles  which  it  is  absurd  to  tax,  and  which  bring  in  a revenue 
running  from  about  $1  upwards,  a considerable  saving  might  be  made 
in  the  cost  of  production  of  certain  articles,  and  in  the  cost  of  living  to 
the  operatives — and  a desirable  reduction  of  revenue  might  also  be  ef- 
fected. If  a further  reduction  were  needed,  the  duty  on  sugar  might 
be  reduced  or  abolished. 

I am  well  aware  that  questions  have  been  raised  as  to  what  are  raw 
materials,  but  there  is  little  practical  difficulty  about  it;  the  term  is 
well  understood.  Each  article  of  so  called  raw  material  can  be  consid- 
ered by  itself,  and  no  theoretical  discussion  as  to  what  constitutes  raw 
material  need  disturb  the  problem.  With  the  advantages  possessed  by 
the  United  States  it  may  be  considered  quite  as  unnecessary  to  restrict 
the  importation  of  ice,  or  wheat,  or  butter,  or  coal,  or  wool,  as  that  of 
cotton.  The  duties  on  raw  materials  necessarily  tend  to  restrict  exports. 
The  duty  ou  carpet- wool,  for  instance,  would  make  it  impossible  to  com- 
pete with  England  in  foreign  markets,  even  if  there  were  no  other  ele- 
ments of  increased  cost  here ; and  the  duty  as  now  imposed  interferes 
with  the  proper  selection  of  wools  for  carpets. 

The  abolition  of  duties  on  raw  materials  and  on  other  articles  indi- 
cated above  can,  I believe,  be  made,  at  least  in  very  large  degree,  with- 
out producing  any  disturbance  in  trade  of  any  consequence,  and  with 
decided  advantages.  There  are  some  articles  that  may  be  called  man- 
ufactures with  more  or  less  propriety  which  are  made  in  Europe  much 
cheaper  than  they  can  be  made  here,  and  the  making  of  such  articles, 
when  not  now  madeou  a large  scale  in  the  United  States,  should  not,  I 
think,  be  encouraged  by  high  duties. 

Formerly  there  was  in  this  country  a scarcity  of  capital  and  of  skilled 
labor,  and  on  this  ground  protection  was  asked  for.  Skilled  labor  now 
exists  or  can  be  procured,  and  there  is  no  scarcity  of  capital. 

The  present  commercial  depression  has  had  a peculiar  feature,  i.  e.,  in 
general,  consumption  has  been  large  and  wages  have  kept  up  generally 
(except  during  its  last  stages),  while  profits  have  vanished — large  pro- 
duction and  large  sales  and  yet  no  profit — iu  many  cases  a loss. 

This  seems  to  indicate  an  excess  of  capital  put  into  manufactures — an 
excessive  number  of  mills  that  by  struggling  for  a market  have  annihi- 
ated  profits. 

This  excessive  production  of  mills  and  “ plant”  has  very  largely  been 
brought  about,  I believe,  by  the  protective  tariffs  that  various  countries 
have  imposed.  Canada  is  a good  illustration.  If  England  has  machin- 
ery enough  to  supply  the  world  with  a certain  kind  of  goods,  and  Ger- 
many and  the  United  States  exclude  them  to  some  extent  byprotective 
tariffs,  mills  will  be  at  once  built  in  Germany  and  the  United  States. 
It  is  clear  that  there  will  then  be  an  excessive  power  of  production  to 
supply  the  world  with  this  special  article.  These  countries  will  then 
contend  for  the  market  and  the  prices  will  be  forced  down  so  as  to  de- 
stroy all  profit  or  to  entail  a loss.  The  lowr  prices  may  stimulate  con- 
sumption, but  probably  to  the  detriment  of  some  other  industry. 

Yours,  respectfully, 


ARTHUR  T.  LYMAN. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


113 


[W.  & J.  Sloane,  carpets.'] 

New  York,  October  13,  1885. 

. Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.: 

Dear  Sir  : We  beg  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  circular  let- 
ter of  the  1st  of  August  last,  in  which  you  “ ask  advice  and  our  views 
as  to  the  feasibility  of  simplifying  the  tariff  and  making  the  duties 
specific  upon  imported  merchandise,  with  which  we  are  familiar,  now 
subject  to  ad  valorem  rates  or  to  which  the  ad  valorem  principle  is  ap- 
plied,” &c.  In  reply,  we  respectfully  submit  that  while  it  may  be  prac- 
ticable to  prepare  a schedule  showing  specific  rates  on  the  various  de- 
scriptions of  carpetings  equivalent  to  the  present  compound  duties,  we 
are  strongly  of  the  opinion  that  the  levying  of  specific  duties  which  do 
not  bear  equally  on  the  more  expensive  as  on  the  less  costly  goods, 
cannot  be  as  equitable  or  just  as  the  system  which  has  been  in  opera- 
tion since  March,  1867. 

The  only  evasions  of  the  tariff  that  have  come  to  our  knowledge 
during  a period  of  many  years,  which  have  subjected  us  to  injury,  are 
the  consignments  of  Turkish  and  Persian  rugs  from  Constantinople 
and  elsewhere  in  the  East.  The  true  value  of  these  goods  is  becoming 
so  well  known  or  can  be  so  readily  ascertained  that  we  feel  confident 
any  future  attempt  to  falsify  invoices  of  the  same  at  this  port  is  almost 
sure  to  be  detected. 

Assuring  you  of  our  hearty  co-operation  in  your  efforts  for  the  im- 
provement of  the  “ custom-revenue  system,” 

We  are,  very  respectfully, 

W.  & J.  SLOANE. 


[H.  A.  Hartley  & Co.,  carpets.] 

Boston,  August  18, 1885. 

The  Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury  Department,  Washington,  D.  G.: 

Sir  : We  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  circular  let- 
ter of  29th  ultimo  requesting  our  opinion  of  the  most  desirable  mode 
or  collecting  duties  on  goods  such  as  are  imported  by  us,  viz,  carpets, 
rugs,  ifiats,  oil-cloths,  &c.,  so  as  best  to  protect  the  Government  and  the 
importer  against  evasions  of  the  tariff. 

We  think  it  will  be  generally  admitted  that  fraud  can  be  practiced, 
quite  irrespective  of  the  system  adopted,  but  our  judgment  from  long 
experience  is  that  a purely  ad  valorem  duty  on  the  goods  wre  have 
specified  would  be  found  much  more  satisfactory  in  every  respect,  less 
complicated, and  affording  better  protection  against  fraud  than  a specific 
duty,  or  the  complex  system  now  in  force. 

One  great  objection  to  the  present  system,  as  applied  to  carpets,  is 
I lie  difficulty  of  determining  the  correct  amount  of  duty  required  at  the 
t ime  of  entering  the  goods ; as  the  calculation  is  very  complicated  and 
intricate,  even  for  experienced  custom-house  brokers,  w7hom  we  inva- 
riably employ  and  necessitates  a deposit  which  proves  sometimes  to 
be  in  excess,  and  at  other  times  short  of  the  required  amount.  This 
objection  is  equally  applicable  to  the  specific  duties. 

This  complication  one  can  readily  see  opens  a wider  door  for  fraud 
than  the  more  simple  u ad  valorem  ” system.  Indeed  we  are  at  a loss 
S.  Ex.  72 8 


114  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

to  see  how,  under  the  latter  system,  fraud  can  escape  the  practiced  eye 
and  judgment  of  an  ordinary  expert,  a glance  at  the  goods  being  suffi- 
cient to  judge  of  quality,  and  the  weight  of  the  bale  or  package,  of  the 
quantity  contained  therein. 

A purely  u ad  valorem  n duty  would  also,  from  its  simplicity,  be  more 
economical  for  the  Government,  as  a much  smaller  staff  would  be  re- 
quired to  perform  the  duties  iu  that  particular  department. 

We  are  conscious  of  the  difficulty  of  adjusting  a tariff  which,  while 
meeting  the  requirements  of  the  Government,  will  best  protect  the  in- 
terests of  the  manufacturer  and  guard  the  public  from  unfair  imposi- 
tion, but  would  venture  to  suggest  the  advisability  of  submitting  the 
whole  subject  to  a mixed  commission  of  manufacturers  and  importers, 
to  consider  all  the  questions  involved  and  endeavor  to  reach  a conclu- 
sion that  will  harmonize  the  several  interests,  afford  the  best  protec- 
tion against  fraud,  and  simplify  the  machinery  of  the  customs  depart- 
ment. 

Your  communication  would  have  received  earlier  attention  but  for  the 
absence  of  our  senior  in  Europe. 

We  remain,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

H.  A.  HARTLEY  & CO. 


[T.  O.  Hague,  carpets  ] 

New  York,  August  21,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  calling  for  information  re  tariff 
laws  and  revenue  collection,  I have  the  honor  to  report  that  I am  in- 
terested in  the  importation  of  oriental  rugs,  oriental  brass  ware,  and 
other  products  of  the  countries  east  of  Cape  Good  Hope.  I also  import 
jute  carpets  and  jute  mattings  from  Scotland. 

Compound  duties  on  whole  carpets  are  objectionable,  because  intri- 
cate, and  give  rise  to  contests  in  their  appraisements.  I believe  whole 
carpets  and  all  oriental  rugs  should  pay  duties  alike,  and  in  no  case 
over  30  x>er  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  would  recommend  25  per  cent,  ad 
valorem.  Jute  mattings  and  jute  carpets  should  pay  the  same  rate  of 
duty,  to  avoid  contest  in  appraisement,  and  should  pay  a duty  not  to 
exceed  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  As  these  goods  rarely  ever  cost  over  20 
cents  per  yard,  it  is  a very  simple  matter  for  the  appraiser  to  learn  their 
valae  to  a certainty,  and  therefore  there  could  be  no  object  in  under- 
valuation. As  the  law  now  stands  jute  carpets  pay  6 cents  per  square 
yard,  and  many  of  them  do  not  cost  as  much;  therefore  this  rate  of  duty 
amounts  in  some  cases  to  over  100  per  cent.  These  goods  are  used  ex- 
clusively by  the  poorest  classes;  therefore  the  present  rate  should  be 
abolished. 

In  many  cases  mattings  and  carpets  are  so  alike  that  appraisers  are 
unable  to  distinguish  the  one  from  the  other  even  with  a sample  of  each 
before  them. 

As  a rule  specific  duties  can  be  taken  advantage  of  by  unscrupulous 
importers,  and  the  revenue  can  be  defrauded  as  much  as  by  ad  valorem 
duties.  There  are  many  classes  of  goods  specific  duties  could  not  be 
applied  to  without  great  injustice  to  the  importer,  the  consumer,  aud 
the  Government,  and  the  imposition  of  them  would  simply  prohibit  im- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


115 


portation,  and  thus  the  Government  would  on  many  things  collect  no 
revenue  at  all,  unless  the  specific  duty  was  so  light  as  to  amount  to  the 
admission  of  a large  list  at  mere  nominal  rates. 

It  would  seem  to  me  that,  in  comparison  with  the  tariff  of  other 
countries,  ours  should  be  lower  as  the  safest  way  to  revive  trade  and 
shipping. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

T.  O.  HAGUE. 


[Tho  American  Carpet  Manufacturers’  Association,  carpets.'] 

Philadelphia,  October  28, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  The  undersigned,  representing  the  most  important  branches  of 
the  carpet  industry,  beg  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  circular 
letter  of  July  18,  1885. 

We  would  respectfully  protest  against  any  change  in  the  tariff,  espe- 
cially on  carpets,  having,  as  a whole,  under  the  tarifi*  of  1883,  suffered 
greater  reductions  than  any  other  industry  covered  by  “ Schedule  K, 
Wool  and  Wooleus.” 

We  also  fail  to  see  how  specific  rates  could  be  equitably  adjusted  or 
wherein  they  would  simplify  the  tariff  or  prevent  fraud  in  the  revenue. 

We  believe  the  present  system  of  compound  duties  to  be  the  only 
equitable  manner  of  protecting  the  manufacturer  oil  his  wide  range  of 
fabrics,  and  equally  efficacious  in  the  interests  of  the  Government  and 
people. 

Arguments  in  support  of  our  conclusions,  which  we  heartily  indorse, 
have  been  presented  to  you  by  the  “National  Association  of  Wool  Man- 
ufacturers,” and  also  by  the  “Philadelphia  Textile  Association,”  to 
which  we  respectfully  refer. 

Assuring  you  of  our  earnest  support  of  any  measure  you  may  inaug- 
urate looking  to  the  improvement  and  better  enforcement  of  our  cus- 
toms laws  and  regulations,  we  remain, 

Yery  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

J.  L.  HOUSTON, 

President. 

CHAS.  F.  FAIBBANKS, 
Secretary . 


October  28,  1885. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  above  association,  held  this  day,  the 
foregoing  letter  was  unanimously  adopted. 

CHAS.  F.  FALBBANKS, 
Secretary. 


116  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[American  Carpet  Manufacturers’  Association.] 

List  of  member 8,  October  8,  1885. 

Abbott  & Co.,  Massachusetts ; Bigelow  Carpet  Company,  Massachusetts;  Bromley 
Bros.  (Limited),  Pennsylvania ; J.  & G.  D.  Bromley,  Pennsylvania ; John  Bromley 
& Sons,  Pennsylvania  ; Beattie  Manufacturing  Company,  New  York;  John  Coch- 
rane, jr.,  Massachusetts;  Alex.  Crane  & Sons,  Pennsylvania;  Robert  Carson, 
Pennsylvania;  Dornan  Bros.  & Co.,  Pennsylvania;  Geo.  W.  Ennis& Co.,  Pennsyl- 
vania ; John  Gay’s  Sons,  Pennsylvania;  Hogg  & Metzzen,  Pennsylvania;  Hartford 
Carpet  Company,  Connecticut;  E.  S.  Higgins  & Co.,  New  York;  Horner  Bros., 
Pennsylvania  ; Robert  Huston,  Penusylvania  ; John  Hamilton,  Pennsylvania  ; Wm. 
James  Hogg,  Massachusetts ; Henderson  &.  Keifer,  Pennsylvania  ; Henry  Holmes, 
Pennsylvania;  Irnis,  Dietz  & Magee,  Pennsylvania;  Judge  Bros.,  Penusylvania; 
James Kitchenman,  Pennsylvania  ; Lowell  Manufacturing  Company,  Massachusetts; 
T.  L.  Leedom  & Co.,  Pennsylvania  ; Montague  & White,  Pennsylvania;  McCallnm, 
Cease  & Sloan,  Pennsylvania;  Palmer  Carpet  Company,  Massachusetts;  Roxbury 
Carpet  Company,  Massachusetts ; Read  Carpet  Company,  Connecticut ; Ross  & 
Getty,  Pennsylvania ; Stephen  Sanford,  New  York ; Alex.  Smith  & Sons,  Carpet 
Company,  New  York;  Stimson  Bros.  & Keulbaum,  Pennsylvania  ; Schofield,  Mason 
& Co.,  Pennsylvania;  Smith,  Arrive  & Scott,  Pennsylvania;  W.  & J.  Sloane,  New 
York;  W.  T.  Smith,  Pennsylvania;  Joseph  Taylor  & Son,  Pennsylvania;  Thomas 
Taylor  & Son,  Pennsylvania ; Van  Dermton  & Horne,  Pennsylvania ; J.  Matthew 
Whittall,  Massachusetts;  Wm.  Whittaker  & Sous,  Pennsylvania;  James  Lees  & 
Sons,  Pennsylvania. 

Note. — Certain  printed  extracts  inclosed  with  the  above  will  be  transmitted  sepa- 
rately to  Congress. 


[Schofield,  Mason  & Co.,  carpets .] 

Philadelphia,  November  11,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir:  We,  as  manufacturers  of  brussels  carpet,  do  most  earnestly  pro- 
test against  any  change  at  present  in  the  existing  wool  and  woolen 
tariff  or  any  other  tariff  revision. 

But  should  there  be  a change  in  the  duty  on  wool,  it  is  indispensable 
for  the  prosperity  of  our  interests  that  the  present  system  of  compound 
duties  be  continued  on  carpets. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

SCHOFIELD,  MASON  & CO. 


[Siegfried  & Brandenstein,  China  mattings.'] 

San  Francisco,  September  3, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular,  under  date  of  the  1st  ultimo,  regarding 
the  entry  and  appraisement  of  imported  merchandise,  to  hand. 

Referring  to  ad  valorem  duties,  we  would  say  that  we  are  of  the 
opinion  that  a specific  duty  would  be  much  more  desirable.  The  parti- 
cular line  which  we  handle  of  dutiable  goods  is  China-straw  mattings, 
and  we  would  suggest  that  a specific  duty  be  charged  on  rolls  weighiug 
up  to  50  pounds,  then  on  rolls  weighing  from  50  to  70  pounds,  from  70 
to  90  pounds,  and  from  90  to  115  pounds,  all  matting  to  be  considered 
3 feet  wide. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


117 


Though  we  will  not  permit  ourselves  to  make  any  charges  against 
any  one,  we  still  think  that  some  Chinese  firms  lower  the  value  of  the 
goods  on  their  custom-house  invoice,  thereby  being  able  to  undersell 
any  honest  importer.  By  a specific  duty  this  could  be  avoided. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

SIEGFEIED  & BEANDENSTEIN. 


[The  same.  ] 

San  Francisco,  October  28,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir  : We  note  that  you  wish  us  to  give  the  rate  of  specific  duty 
we  would  favor  on  China  matting,  and  its  ad  valorem  equivalent,  and  in 
answer  would  say  that  we  think  the  following  scale  of  duty  . on  straw 
mattings  would  be  a just  one.  We  refer  to  mattings  3 feet  wide  and 
40  yards  long,  which  is  the  usual  size  of  rolls  sent  to  this  market. 

On  mattings  weighing  50  pounds  or  less,  80  cents  per  roll. 

On  mattings  weighing  51  pounds  to  70  pounds,  90  cents. 

On  mattings  weighing  71  pounds  to  90  pounds  $1. 

On  mattings  weighing  91  pounds  and  over,  $1.10. 

Or  about  an  average  equivalent  of  25  per  cent  of  the  value. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

SIEGFEIED  & BEANDENSTEIN. 


[Robert  Foulds,  toys.  ] 

New  York,  July  27,  1885. 

Daniel  Manning,  Esq., 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  yours  of  the  22d  instant  would  say  that  it  would 
be  very  difficult  to  arrange  specific  duties  for  the  class  of  goods  in  which 
I deal. 

The  present  duties  are  from  15  to  40  per  cent.,  mostly  35  per  cent., 
and  I do  not  think  that  a less  duty  or  a*  specific  one  would  benefit  my 
trade. 

I can  afford  to  pay  the  present  duties  and  get  a profit  on  my  sales. 
The  only  favor  I ask  is  that  all  the  trade  pay  the  same  duties. 

To  illustrate  the  difficulty  with  special  duties  take  the  article  of  dolls. 
They  cost  from  5 cents  a dozen  to  $25  and  upwards.  T see  no  way  of 
laying  a specific  duty  on  them  without  being  subject  to  the  same  risk 
of  undervaluation  that  you  now  are. 

Ad  valorem  duties  seem  to  me  to  be  the  most  equitable  mode  of  dis- 
tributing the  tax,  as  the  consumer  then  pays  in  proportion  to  the  cost 
of  the  article  which  he  purchases;  rich  and  poor  alike  pay  their  propor- 
tion. Not  so  with  many  specific  duties.  The  most  important  considera 
tion  is  the  honest  collection  of  all  duties,  and  when  the  tariff  is  high  the 
temptation  to  evade  it  is  very  great.  My  idea  is  that  the  tariff  should 
be  a moderate  one,  and  that  for  revenue  only,  with  as  nearly  free  trade 
as  is  possible  in  raw  material.  Then,  with  our  machinery  and  ingenuity, 


118  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

we  can  compete  for  a part  of  the  trade  of  the  world.  The  damage 
allowance  is  one  of  the  things  from  which  the  honest  importer  has  suf- 
ferred  much,  and  in  my  opinion  should  be  abolished  if  it  cannot  be  man- 
aged honestly. 

The  charges  for  packing  and  boxing  goods  is  another  matter  that 
needs  looking  into,  as  I am  satisfied  that  there  is  a want  of  uniformity 
in  deducting  charges  of  this  kiud,  which  on  some  kinds  of  goods  are 
quite  an  item,  especially  where  such  article  is  packed  in  a separate 
box,  some  deducting  only  the  cost  of  the  outside  wood  box,  while  oth- 
ers deduct  for  all  boxes.  The  present  tariff  is  not  a good  one,  and  hope 
that  whatever  changes  are  made  will  improve  it. 

Yours,  truly, 

R.  FOULDS. 


[Horatio  G.  Knight,  buttons.'] 

New  York,  October  20,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Sir:  At  a meeting  of  manufacturers  of  buttons  held  in  this  city  to- 
day, the  undersigned  (chairman  and  secretary  of  said  meeting)  were 
appointed  a committee  to  answer  your  circular  dated  September  8, 1885, 
received  by  several  of  said  manufacturers. 

There  are  about  one  hundred  firms  and  corporations  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  of  buttons  in  the  United  States,  the  value  of  whose  prod- 
ucts exceeds  $5,000,000  per  annum.  Various  metals,  horn,  bone,  India 
rubber,  ivory,  pearl,  glass,  wood,  vegetable  ivory,  various  composi- 
tions, and  a great  variety  of  textile  fabrics  are  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  buttons,  varying  in  size  from  oue-eighth  of  an  inch  to  1J  inches  in 
diameter,  and  varying  in  cost  from  a few  cents  to  many  dollars  for  the 
single  gross  of  144  buttons. 

The  commercial  or  techhical  designation  of  buttons  is  indicated  by 
the  raw  materials  of  which  they  are  composed,  excepting  those  made 
from  various  textile  fabrics,  which  come  under  the  general  designation 
of  “covered  buttons.” 

In  some  kinds  of  buttons  raw  material  constitutes  a small  part  and 
labor  a large  part  of  the  cost  of  manufacture,  labor,  however,  being  a. 
considerable  item  in  all. 

Many  of  the  raw  materials  are  imported,  and  while  some  are  free  of 
duty  and  others  pay  a low  duty,  some  are  sutyect  to  a high  duty.  The 
duty  on  imported  buttons  also  varies  greatly,  affording  ample  protec- 
tion on  some  kinds,  inadequate  protection  on  some,  and  no  protection 
on  others.  Two  or  three  branches  of  this  industry,  in  which  labor  con 
stitutes  a large  part  of  the  cost  of  production,  are  at  present  languish- 
ing and  apparently  dying  out. 

In  the  manufacture  of  most  kinds  of  buttons  the  cheapness  of  labor 
in  Europe  is  an  element  of  great  disadvantage  to  the  American  manu- 
facturers. 

By  the  foregoing  statement  of  facts  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  give  definite  and  satisfactory  answers  to  the  questions  contained 
in  your  circular. 

While  we  favor  specific  duties  in  lieu  of  ad  valorem  upon  imported 
articles  to  which  the  former  can  be  properly  applied,  we  fail  to  see  how 
specific  rates  can  be  fixed  upon  this  class  of  merchandise,  nor  is  it  pos- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  119 

sible  to  state  what  specific  rate  would  be  equivalent  to  the  average  of 
present  ad  valorem  rates. 

In  conclusion  we  respectfully  suggest  that  in  a revision  of  the  tariff 
it  may  be  expedient  to  prescribe  a small  specific  duty  and  a small  ad 
valorem  duty  upon  imported  buttons,  thus  securing  some  security 
against  undervaluation,  and  reasonable  protection  to  American  manu- 
facturers. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

HORATIO  G.  KNIGHT,  Chairman. 

J.  RICHARD  SMITH,  Secretary. 


[Rothschild  Bros.  & Co. , buttons.  ] 

New  York,  October  12,  1885. 

Jon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  V our  valued  circular  of  August  1,  requesting  our  views 
as  to  the  feasibility  of  simplifying  the  tariff,  &c.,  has  had  our  serious  at 
tention  and  thoughts  ever  since.  A comprehensive  reply  was  delayed 
in  order  to  give  us  this  season’s  experience  for  our  guide. 

We  have  now  the  honor  to  report  to  you,  that  in  our  opinion  a specific 
duty  on  our  goods  is  simply  impossible,  for  the  following  reasons : 

A gross  of  metal  buttons,  costing  in  Europe  18J  cents,  weighs  14J 
ounces. 

A gross  of  metal  buttons  of  finer  finish,  costing  $9.60,  weighs  11| 
ounces. 

A gross  of  common  pearl  buttons,  costing  32  cents,  weighs  6J  ounces. 

A gross  of  fine  pearl  buttons,  costing  $18,  weighs  10  ounces. 

A gross  of  common  jet  buttons,  costing  24  cents,  weighs  10  ounces. 

A gross  of  fine  jet  buttons,  costing  $9.60,  weighs  9J  ounces. 

This  illustration  could  be  carried  on  almost  indefinitely,  and  no  aver- 
age could  be  arrived  at,  in  justice  to  the  Government  or  the  importer. 
It  is  the  same  in  most  other  buttons. 

A simplification  could  only  be  arrived  at  by  having  a uniform  duty 
on  all  buttons  and  button  material  for  men’s  and  women’s  use,  and  we 
consider  25  per  cent,  or  30 per  cent,  a fair  tariff  for  Government,  importer, 
and  consumer. 

The  great  difficulty  experienced  heretofore  has  been  the  classification, 
which  had  to  be  left  almost  entirely  with  the  examiner,  and  therefore 
the  protests  are  so  numerous,  and  in  fact  importers  protest  and  appeal 
on  nearly  all  their  invoices. 

We  have  not,  to  our  knowledge,  suffered  on  account  of  undervalua- 
tion, and  as  far  as  we  know  this  practice  does  not  exist  to  any  extent 
in  our  line  of  business. 

We  shall  take  pleasure  to  assist  the  Department  in  its  laudable  ob- 
ject, and  remain, 

Very  respectfully, 


ROTHSCHILD  BROS,  & CO. 


120  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

[A.  & D.  Flesh,  trimmings  and  buttons.'} 

New  York,  October  23, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington , D,  G.  : 

Dear  Sir  : Excuse  delay  in  responding  to  your  circular  of  August  1. 

Herewith  the  following  facts  about  the  classification  of  goods  we  im- 
port and  are  interested  in  : 

(1)  Dress  braids  and  bindings,  manufactured  of  cotton  or  mohair,  on 
which  we  have  to  pay  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  and  30  cents  per  pound. 
Most  of  these  braids  are  imported  in  black,  which  color  admits  an  end 
less  amount  of  charge  in  the  dye  stuff*,  and  this  process  can  also  be  used 
in  the  colored  goods  of  the  same  description.  The  duty  amounts  to 
nearly  100  per  cent.,  which  is  far  in  excess  of  the  protection  we  need. 
Our  machinery  here  is  far  superior  and  the  process  of  manufacturing- 
cheaper  than  abroad. 

Here  is  an  example  of  an  importation : We  received  per  str.  Fulda, 
as  per  invoice  July  24,  1885,  from  Messrs.  Kaiser  & Dicke,  Barmen, 
Germany,  the  largest  manufacturers,  a lot  of  braids  to  the  value  of 
1,040.90  marks,  equal  to  $391.  The  amount  of  duty  paid  on  this  impor- 
tation was  $316.10,  which,  with  commission,  freight,  insurance,  ex- 
penses, interest,  &c.,  runs  up  to  nearly  100  per  cent. 

We  are  accustomed  to  import  these  goods  only  small,  and  fill  our 
orders  here  from  the  manufacturers’  agents,  with  only  a small  advance, 
or  even  at  or  below  cost  to  us. 

(2)  Trimmiugs  pay  50  per  cent,  duty  ad  valorem,  which  is  also  exces- 
sive, as  the  state  of  the  market  shows.  No  appraiser  can  tell  the  value 
of  a trimming,  an  article  of  fashion,  where  the  taste  and  ingenuity  of 
the  manufacturer  is  paid.  The  auction-room  and  the  prices  therein  re- 
alized show  how  we  fare  with  our  importation's. 

(3)  Dress  buttons. — Crochet  covers  for  finishing  here,  and  to  be  put  into 
buttons,  pay  10  per  cent,  duty  ad  valorem.  Crochet  buttons,  finished,  carded, 
and  boxed  in  Europe,  cost  50  per  cent,  duty  ad  valorem,  which  puts  the 
importer  out  altogether. 

Steel  buttons,  it  is  just  the  reverse.  We  have  to  pay  45  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  on  steel  points  and  trimmings;  meanwhile  the  manufactured 
article  steel  button  costs  only  25  per  cent.  duty.  We  manulacture  but- 
tons here,  and  this  is  against  us. 

We  pay  the  45  per  cent,  duty  on  steel  points  and  trimmings  always 
under  protest,  and  as  the  duty  on  steel  nails  is  only  1J  cents  per  pound, 
we  hope  to  get  our  money  refunded,  as  the  tariff*  was  never  intended  to 
exact  45  per  cent,  duty  on  raw  material  and  permit  the  manufactured 
article  to  come  in  at  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Steel  and  steel  plates  cost  only  10  per  cent.  duty. 

Metal  buttons,  the  duty  has  never  been  decided  upon,  and  25  per 
cent,  and  45  per  cent,  has  been  collected  under  a constant  dispute  be- 
tween importers,  appraisers,  and  the  authorities  in  Washington.  De- 
cisions and  instructions  have  been  altered  constantly,  and  we  always 
paid  45  per  cent,  under  protest. 

Allow  me  to  call  your  attention  to  the  slow  settlement  or  payment  of 
refunds  coming  to  us.  We  have  decisions  in  our  favor  and  cannot  col- 
lect the  money.  There  is  $1,000  due  us  at  present,  for  which  we  signed 
vouchers  end  of  July,  and  were  promised  the  mouey  in  about  thirty 
days. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 


A.  & D.  FLESH, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


121 


[Peter  Wright  & Sons,  earthenware,  pig  iron,  tinplate,  salt,  tfc.J 

Philadelphia,  July  30,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : We  are  in  receipt  of  your  circular  letter  of  24tli  instant, 
asking’  for  our  views  upon  matters  connected  with  the  tariff,  &c. 

As  this  is  a matter  to  which  we  have  given  attention,  we  take  great 
pleasure  in  complying  with  your  request. 

Our  importations  consist  mainly  of  earthenware,  iron  (pig  or  spiegel), 
salt  (in  bags  or  bulk),  tin  plate,  soda  ash,  and  caustic  soda.  All  but 
earthenware  are  of  the  nature  of  raw  materials,  i.  e .,  they  require  more 
or  less  manipulation  or  manufacture  before  they  can  be  consumed  ; and 
all  but  earthenware  are  subject  to  specific  rates  of  duties. 

Earthenware:  our  imports  are  almost  entirely  of  staple  articles, 
which  are  governed  by  a gross  price  list  and  discounts,  adopted  by  all 
manufacturers  and  which  are  but  seldom  changed,  and  are  well  known 
not  only  to  those  in  the  trade,  but  to  customs  officers  and  others. 

We  use  the  term  staple  in  contradistinction  to  fancy  articles,  brie  a- 
brac,  &c.,  the  prices  for  which  are  almost  as  various  as  the  manufactu- 
rers who  make  them. 

We  tried  some  years  ago  to  formulate  a plan  of  specific  duty,  appli- 
cable to  earthenware,  but  found  it  impossible,  for,  when  we  tried 
weight  we  found  the  highly  wrought,  expensive  boxes  used  by  the 
wealthy  were  far  lighter  than  the  same  class  of  article  made  for  con- 
sumption by  the  great  masses  of  the  people.  When  we  tried  measure- 
ment we  found  the  same  high  class  wares  were  less  bulky  than  the 
medium  and  low  priced.  Either  weight  or  measurement  duty,  if  based 
upon  the  high  class  wares,  would  be  manifestly  unjust  to  the  great  body 
of  consumers;  and,  if  based  upon  low-cost  goods,  would  be  almost 
equivalent  to  letting  in  high  class  goods  duty  free.  We  are  sure  no  fair 
specific  duty  can  be  applied  to  earthenware,  which  we  regret,  for  we 
believe  strongly  in  specific  duties. 

In  our  opinion  the  evasions  of  duty,  referred  to  in  your  letter,  have 
been  largely  increased,  if  not  altogether  caused,  by  the  practice  which 
has  obtained  in  the  Treasury  Department  of  either  directly  or  indirectly 
compromising  with  dishonest  importers ; and,  so  long  as  this  practice 
continues  will  men  be  found  willing  to  run  the  risk  for  the  sake  of  the 
great  gains  it  promises.  So  soon  as  it  becomes  known  that  those  found 
guilty  of  deliberately  defrauding  the  revenue  wiil  be  punished  to  the 
full  extent  of  the  law,  not  only  for  the  offense  convicted  of,  but  for  back 
offenses,  so  soon  will  honest  In er chants  have  a better  chance  to  live  and 
the  Government  to  collect  the  revenue,  whether  specific  or  ad  valorem. 
Frauds  upon  the  revenue,  while  no  doubt  much  greater  in  goods  sub- 
ject to  ad  valorem  duties,  are  not  unknown  in  goods  subject  to  specific 
duties,  though  in  the  latter  case  they  require  collusion  with  a weigher. 

Our  opinion  of  the  tariff  on  earthenware  may  be  found  in  the  writer’s 
testimony  before  the  Tariff  Commission  at  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  30, 
1882. 

We  consider  the  late  Tariff  Commission  left  the  whole  question  in  a 
much  more  complicated  and  unsatisfactory  condition  than  they  found 
it,  and  that  Congress  by  its  hasty,  ill-considered  act  of  March  3, 1883, 
added  to  the  objectionable  work  of  the  Tariff*  Commission. 

The  abolition  of  the  duty  on  package  charges,  &c.,  was,  in  our  opin- 
ion, the  most  creditable  thing  done  in  connection  with  the  tariff,  either 


122  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


by  the  Tariff  Commission  or  by  the  Congress  which  acted  upon  their 
report. 

We  consider  the  manner  of  handling  the  tariff  question,  as  well  as  of 
collecting  the  revenue  for  some  years  back,  require  radical  changes,  but 
as  yourletter  does  not  specifically  ask  for  information  under  these  heads, 
and  they  are  large  and  important  questions,  we  rest  the  answer  here. 

Very  respectfully, 

PETER  WRIGHT  & SONS. 


[Wahl  Brothers,  glue.'] 


Chicago,  September  4,  1885. 


Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  W ashington,  D.  C.  : 

Sir  : In  response  to  your  circular  of  July  19,  the  undersigned,  manu- 
facturers of  glue,  would  respectfully  represent: 

That  from  50  to  75  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  glue  is  labor,  which,  as  is 
well  known,  is  much  higher  here  than  in  foreign  countries,  while  the 
material  from  which  glue  is  made  costs  the  American  fully  as  much  as 
it  does  the  foreign  manufacturer.  There  is  now  a duty  on  glue  of  20 
per  cent,  ad  valorem,  which  we  do  not  urge  to  be  increased,  although 
it  shoulcj  be  done  in  the  interest  of  home  manufacturers,  but  we  do 
urge , in  the  interest  of  the  revenue  as  well  as  of  all  other  interests  con- 
cerned, that  the  duty  be  changed  from  “ ad  valorem  ” to  u specific.” 
Glue  is  sold  at  from  10  to  20  cents  per  pound,  according  to  quality, 
but  even  experts  cannot  decide  as  to  its  value  except  upon  trial.  Hence 
if  the  question  of  value  is  never  raised  at  the  custom  house,  but  the  glue 
weighed  instead,  not  only  will  the  collection  of  duties  be  simplified  bui 
the  inducement  to  undervaluation  will  be  withdrawn,  the  revenue  will 
not  be  reduced,  and  it  will  be  much  more  satisfactory  to  manufacturers 
of  glue  as  well  as  to  honest  importers. 

We  would  therefore  recommend  as  a fair  average  a specific  duty  of  3 
cents  per  pound  on  glue. 

Very  respectfully, 


WAHL  BROTHERS. 


From  the  best  information  we  have  we  estimate  the  entire  production 
of  glue  at  20,000,000  pounds  and  of  gelatine  at  200,000  pounds  per 
annum. 


WAHL  BROTHERS. 


[Tlio  New  England  Monument  Company,  manufacturers  of  marble.] 

New  York,  August  29,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  United  States  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  of  July  31,  regarding  a change 
in  existiug  tarjff  from  ad  valorem  to  specific  duty,  we  will  say  that  the 
only  kind  of  granite  which  is  imported  into  this  country  in  considerable 
quantity  is  the  Scotch  granite,  from  Aberdeen  and  other  parts  of  Scot- 
land, and  this  is  rarely,  if  ever,  imported  in  a rough  or  unfinished  state. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  123 

The  principal  demand  for  it  is  for  all  polished  or  partly  hammered  and 
partly  polished  work. 

The  value  of  the  rough  material  per  foot  is  largely  affected  not  only 
by  the  cubical  contents  of  each  piece  but  also  by  the  iorm  of  each 
piece,  as  in  the  case  of  a square,  thin  base,  a die  which  is  nearly  a cube, 
or  a long,  square  shaft. 

The  icorlc  also  varies  largely  in  quantity  as  well  as  in  kind,  and  from 
the  plain  to  the  ornate,  and  from  that  which  can  be  done  by  machinery 
to  that  which  can  be  done  by  hand  only. 

The  products  of  different  quarries  vary  in  value  one  from  the  other, 
so  that  a given  design  executed  from  different  quarries  varies  in  value. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  seems  to  us  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
to  fix  a specific  duty  which  will  operate  fairly  in  all  cases.  The  system 
of  sworn  invoices  seems  best  calculated  to  furnish  a basis  for  duty. 

If  in  any  case  an  undervaluation  is  suspected  it  will  be  easy  to  ob- 
tain from  experts  the  value  of  any  consignment  or  separate  monument. 

The  foregoing  applies  also  to  a certain  extent  to  marble  statues  from 
Italy  and  elsewhere. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

C.  B.  CANFIELD, 

For  the  New  England  Monument  Company. 


f Vermont  Marble  Company,  marble  and  manufactures  of  marble.  ] 

Proctor,  Butland  County,  Vermont, 

November  14,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C.  : 

Sir:  Beferring  to  your  printed  circular  of  the  31st  of  July  last,  re- 
questing views  as  to  the  feasibility  of  simplifying  the  tariff,  &c.,  as 
bearing  upon  the  subject  of  the  importation  of  Italian  marble,  we  re- 
spectfully submit  the  following: 

So  far  as  we  are  informed,  the  producers  of  American  marble  are  agreed 
that  the  tariff  upon  imported  marble  should,  so  far  as  practicable,  be  a 
specific  one;  and  we  understand  that  the  importers  are  also  in  favor  of 
the  “ specific ” principle.  (See  page  1650,  vol.  2,  of  the  “Beport  of  the 
Tariff  Commission,  18S2,”  where  a committee  representing  the  importers 
of  marble  in  the  block  asked  that,  on  that  class  of  marble,  the  tariff 
might  be  changed  from  a “compound”  rate  to  one  entirely  “specific.” 
Also,  see  vol.  1 of  the  same  report,  page  CGG,  where  a like  request  was 
made  by  another  committee  representing  the  Boston  importers.) 

Under  our  revenue  laws  imported  marble  is  divided  into  three  classes 
as  follows : 

First.  “Marble  of  all  kinds  in  block,  rough,  or  squared.” 

Second.  “Veined  marble,  sawed,  dressed,  or  otherwise,  including 
marble  slabs  and  marble  paving  tiles.” 

Third.  “All  manufactures  of  marble  not  specially  enumerated  or 
provided  for  by  this  act.” 

There  is  also,  properly,  a 

Fourth,  viz,  “Statuary,”  which  is  included  in  the  division  of  “paint- 
ings, in  oil  or  water  colors,  and  statuary,  not  otherwise  provided  for.” 
Under  the  act  of  March  3,  1861,  the  duty  on  all  these  classes  was  ad 
valorem.  By  subsequent  changes,  and  in  particular  by  the  act  of  March 


124  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


3,  1883,  the  duty  on  the  first  and  second  classes  is  now  specific,  though 
the  third  class  and  statuary  are  still  subject  to  ad  valorem  rates. 

We  believe  that  the  revenue  system  in  the  matter  of  the  importation 
of  marble  would  be  simplified,  incongruities  removed,  and  the  whole  ren- 
dered more  effective  and  uniform  by  the  following  changes  or  modifica- 
tions : 

(1)  The  substitution  of  at  least  a compound  duty  in  place  of  the  present  ad 
valorem  duty  on  the  third  class , or  u all  manufactures  of  marble  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for  by  this  act  v — We  place  this  largely  on  the 
ground  of  the  danger  of  fraud  and  undervaluation  under  a wholly  ad 
valorem  system.  The  reports  of  Special  Treasury  Agent  N.  W.  Bing- 
ham, to  which  more  particular  reference  will  hereinafter  be  made,  show 
that  during  the  period  between  1875  and  1870,  which  his  investigations 
and  reports  cover  only,  there  were  large  frauds  perpetrated  in  the  exe- 
cution of  the  ad  valorem  system  of  duty  on  marble;  and  the  United 
States  Treasury  was  defrauded  of  many  thousands  of  dollars,  and  the 
American  producers  of  marble  were  deprived  of  that  protection  which 
the  law  was  intended  to  give  them.  In  his  report  of  April  30,  1879, 
although  at  that  time  he  had  no  evidence  of  undervaluation  in  the  case 
of  importations  of  manufactured  marble,  except  as  to  one  firm,  still  he 
says : “ As  to  these,  I am  prepared  to  report  that  during  the  past  four 
years,  at  least,  the  percentage  of  undervaluation  has  been  very  much 
larger  than  in  the  case  of  block  marble.” 

We  understand  that  later  during  the  same  year  investigations  were 
made  in  Boston  by  Mr.  Bingham  and  others  with  reference  to  the  un- 
dervaluation of  an  importation  of  manufactured  marble  imported  in  the 
bark  John  E.  Chase,  and  that  it  fully  corroborated  his  more  gen 
oral  report  above.  It  might  not  be  best  in  this  class  to  change  at  once 
from  a wholly  ad  valorem  to  a wholly  specific  duty,  but  we  do  think  it 
can  safely  be  changed  to  an  equivalent  u compound”  one,  with  a view  to 
making  it  entirely  specific  at  some  future  time.  This  has  been  the  his- 
tory of  the  change  in  the  other  two  classes,  and  the  early  steps  towards 
it  were  at  the  time  considered  more  venturesome  than  even  a complete 
change  would  now  in  this  class. 

In  the  case  of  any  modifications  or  changes  that  might  be  made  in  the 
tariff  on  marble  as  it  now  stands,  we  should  especially  deprecate  any- 
thing which  should  tend  to  lower  it  from  its  present  basis.  Almost  the 
entire  value  of  marble  in  any  shape  in  which  it  is  brought  into  this 
country  represents  labor,  and  labor  only.  Its  value  is  measured  by  the 
cost  of  the  labor  to  blast  the  marble  out  of  the  mountain,  prepare  the 
blocks,  move  them  to  the  seaport,  and  the  subsequent  work  employed 
in  its  manufacture.  The  value  of  blocks  as  taken  from  American  quar- 
ries is  estimated  to  be  80  per  cent  labor,  15  per  cent,  machinery,  and 
only  5 per  cent,  raw  material  in  the  earth.  And  the  comparison  is  a 
great  deal  stronger  in  the  case  of  Italian  marble,  since  no  machinery  is 
used  in  the  quarrying  and  manufacture  of  marble  in  Italy.  See  an 
article  in  the  June  Century,  1882,  by  Mr.  R.  W.  Welch,  late  consul  at 
Carrara.  He  says : 

No  machinery  of  any  kind  is  used  in  the  Carrara  quarries.  The  men  of  to  day 
quarry  after  the  fashion  of  their  grandfathers.  A common  hand-drill,  a few  jugs  of 
nitric  acid,  and  a plentiful  supply  of  gunpowder  complete  the  outfit  of  the  marble 
miners.  * * * Having  blasted  the  marble  out  of  the  mountain,  the  producer’s 

next  step  is  to  put  the  available  blocks  into  tolerably  regular  shapes.  This  is  done 
with  the  chisel  and  hammer  by  men  who  receive  from  25  to  35  cents  a day. 

So  long  as  the  policy  of  protection  has  any  part  in  our  revenue  sys- 
tem, marble  is  a proper  subject  for  it.  It  is  wholly  a matter  of  home  as 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


125 


opposed  to  foreign  labor.  (See  pages  1553-1557  of  Yol.  2 of  “Report 
of  Tariff  Commission,  1882,”  where  eleven  reasons  are  briefly  given 
against  any  reduction  in  the  tariff  on  marble.)  We  quote  the  following 
from  Mr.  Bingham’s  report  of  April  30, 1879: 

In  an  annual  statement  of  the  bnsiuess  of  the  firm  in  Carrara  for  1877  and  1878, 
sent  by  Franklin  Torry  to  Charles  Torry,  ho  gave  the  quantity  aud  aggregate  values 
of  block  marble  shipped,  which  shows  the  cost  (without  adding  anything  for  profit) 
of  n arble  on  shipboard  during  those  years  to  have  been  $1.1G  per  cubic  feet. 

Mr.  Franklin  Torry  was  at  this  time,  and  had  been  for  many  years 
previous,  the  consul  at  Carrara,  and  had  charge  of  the  importations 
of  the  firm.  He  was  therefore  well  qualified  to  know,  and  was  writing 
to  his  brother  and  partner  in  interest,  who  was  entitled  to  receive  the 
exact  truth.  Elsewhere,  in  the  same  report,  Mr.  Bingham  says: 

The  average  wholesale  prices  or  market  value  on  shipboard  at  the  place  and  time 
of  shipment,  of  the  various  cargoes  of  block  ordinary  marble  that  have  been  im- 
ported from  Italy,  during  the  past  four  years,  have  been  from  $1.22  to  $1.28  per  cubic 
foot. 

The  difference  only  represents  raw  material  and  profit  combined.  There 
is  no  view  entertained  upon  this  subject  so  fallacious  as  to  consider  im- 
ported marble,  even  in  its  crudest  form,  as  raw  material. 

We  would  suggest  that  a specific  duty  of  $2  per  cubic  foot  inside 
case  measure  and  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  might  be  about  a fair  equiva- 
lent. The  returns  which  we  have  from  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  do  not 
show  the  number  of  feet  of  “ manufactures  of  marble,”  which  have 
been  imported  each  year.  We  are  confident,  however,  that  less  than 
this  would  not  be  an  equivalent,  and  it  might  require  as  much  as  $3 
per  foot,  and  25  per  cent,  additional.  If  you  desire  we  should  be  glad 
to  produce  facts  and  statistics  bearing  on  this  particular  point,  but 
which  are  not  accessible  to  us  at  the  time  of  this  writing. 

2.  Certain  changes  in  the  classification  of  statuary. — The  distinction  in 
favor  of  statuary,  for  the  encouragement  of  higher  art,  as  against  other 
manufactures  of  marble,  is  perhaps  a just  one.  The  value  of  this  class 
of  importations  is  so  largely  dependent  upon  its  artistic  merits  that 
we  are  inclined  to  think  that  an  ad  valorem  duty  is  needed  in  this  par- 
ticular case.  But  there  are  grave  abuses  in  the  classification  which 
ought  to  be  Corrected. 

(A)  It  has  been  ruled  by  the  Treasury  Department  that  the  pedestals 
on  which  the  statuary  was  set  should  be  included  with  it  and  be  en- 
tered at  the  reduced  rate.  This  opens  the  door  for  fraud  aud  grave 
abuses,  and  investigation  has  shown  it  to  exist.  On  this  point  we  would 
respectfully  call  j our  attention  to  the  report  of  Special  Agent  Bingham 
on  this  particular  subject,  dated  May  26,  1879,  from  which  report  it  ap- 
pears that  monuments  and  other  work  intended  for  cemetery  use  have 
been  systematically  imported  along  with  statuary  under  the  guise  of 
pedestals  aud  have  afterwards  been  sold  separate  from  the  statuary,  to 
which  they  bear  no  real  connection.  Furthermore,  we  maintain  that 
the  classification,  even  if  not  abused,  is  an  unjust  oue.  Whatever 
reasons  may  exist  for  a distinction  in  favor  of  statuary,  on  the  point  of 
art,  apply  to  statuary  purely  and  do  not  prevail  in  the  case  of  the 
pedestal,  or  of  anything  else  which  might  by  possibility  go  with  the 
statuary,  but  is  not  such  a part  of  it  as  to  be  made  ol  the  same  ma- 
terial or  to  require  the  same  skilled  and  professional  workmanship. 
Reference  need  only  be  made  to  the  statuary  in  the  rotunda  of  the  Cap- 
itol at  Washington  to  illustrate  this.  The  statues  contributed  by  the 
States  are  mostly  carved  in  Italian  statuary  marble,  while  the  pedes- 
tals are  generally  native  marble  or  granite.  These  so-called  pedestals, 


126  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


even  when  they  are  actually  such,  are  not  works  of  art  or  the  results 
of  professional  skill,  and  when  made  of  ordinary  veined  marble,  as  is 
usually  the  case,  belong  both  in  workmanship  and  quality  of  material 
to  the  class  of  “ manufactures  of  marble.”  Accepting  the  decision  of 
the  Department,  however,  as  a correct  interpretation  of  the  law  as  it 
stands,  we  respectfully  recommend  that  the  law  be  so  changed  as  to 
rigidly  exclude  from  this  classification  all  pedestals  and  other  manu- 
factures of  marble  which  may  accompany  the  statuary,  if  when  taken 
alone  and  apart  from  it,  they  would  not  properly  come  under  this  class. 

(B)  There  is  a large  class  of  manufactures  of  marble,  consisting  of  fig- 
ures cut  in  marble,  usually  small,  made  out  of  the  ordinary  veined  marble, 
and  by  ordinary  workmen  or  journeymen.  They  are  used  mostly  to  com- 
plete monuments  or  other  cemetery  work,  and  come  in  direct  competition, 
not  with  our  American  sculptors’  studios,  but  with  marble  work  shops, 
and  have  an  importance  far  out  of  proportion  to  the  rest  of  the  monument 
in  determining  the  sale  of  cemetery  work.  As  made  by  the  cheap  labor 
of  Italy,  and  freighted  into  New  York  and  other  ports  at  rates  of  freight 
no  larger  thau  from  our  own  quarries;  if,  then,  thejr  can  be  entered  at 
the  reduced  statuary  rates,  their  net  cost  to  importers  is  so  low  com- 
pared with  the  similar  results  of  our  more  expensive  home  labor  that 
oftentimes  it  will  more  than  neutralize  whatever  protection  the  law  may 
have  intended  to  give  on  the  balance  of  the  monument.  We  have  rea- 
son to  believe,  and  do  believe,  that  mauy  figures  such  as  described  are 
being  wrongfully  entered  and  classed  as  statuary  to  the  great  injury  and 
detriment  of  home  manufactures  and  our  American  workmen,  whether 
they  be  workers  of  American  or  Italian  marble.  In  this  connection,  see 
the  report  of  Special  Agent  Bingham,  of  May  20,  1879.  As  a measure 
for  restricting  this  abuse  we  recommend  that  the  definition  of  statuary, 
as  it  occurs  in  the  revenue  laws,  and  which  is  as  follows  : “But  the  term 
statuary,  as  used  iu  tbe  laws  now  in  force  imposing  duties  on  foreign 
importations,  shall  be  understood  to  include  professional  productions 
of  a statuary  or  of  a sculptor  only,”  be  amended  by  adding  the  follow- 
ing, “which  are  made  or  carved  iu  what  is  know  to  the  trade  as  statu- 
ary marble.”  We  would  respectfully  submit,  however,  that  such  a 
restriction  or  limitation  might  be  made  by  a ruling  of  the  Department 
as  being  in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  definition  and  of  the  law, 
since  the  professional  productions  of  a statuary  ora  sculptor,  if  executed 
in  Italian  marble,  will  only  be  executed  in  this  kind.  Such  a ruling 
would  be  a simple  way  to  accomplish  something  towards  repressing 
this  abuse. 

3.  It  also  appears  from  Mr.  Bingham’s  report  of  April  30,  1879,  that 
the  reduction  of  Italian  palms  to  feet  in  the  entry  at  the  port  of  Boston 
has  been  done  generally  by  multiplying  by  512  instead  of  555.5,  thereby 
making  the  feet  less  than  the  true  quantity.  He  also  says,  “ I have  no 
doubt  that  many  thousands  of  dollars  have  been  lost  by  the  Government 
iu  the  matter  of  quantity  as  well  as  value.”  Whether  this  abuse  has 
been  corrected  we  do  not  understand,  but  we  would  recommend  that  in 
the  rules  for  the  guidance  of  custom-house  officers  they  should  be  in- 
structed to  make  this  reduction  on  such  a uniform  basis  as  is  found  by 
the  investigations  of  the  Department  to  be  accurate. 

Our  recommendations,  therefore,  briefly  are: 

(1)  The  substitution  of  an  equivalent  compound  duty  for  the  present 
ad  valorem  duty  on  that  class  of  marble  designated  u All  manufactures 
of  marble  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  by  this  act.” 

(2)  The  rigid  exclusion  by  law  from  the  class  of  statuary  of  pedestals 
and  other  manufactures  of  marble  which  may  accompany  the  statuary 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  127 

if  when  taken  alone  and  apart  from  it  they  would  not  properly  be  classed 
as  statuary. 

(3)  A law  or  ruling  of  the  Department  that  the  class  “ statuary  ” shall 
only  include  work  that  is  executed  in  statuary  marble. 

(4)  A proper  reduction  of  the  Italian  palms  to  feet. 

In  the  foregoing  we  have  made  frequent  references  to  the  reports  of 
Special  Agent  Bingham,  which  we  were  permitted  to  examine  through 
the  courtesy  of  your  Department.  (See  letter  to  Mr.  Bedfield  Proctor, 
Proctor,  Vt.,  October  6,  1885,  6512  O,  signed  by  the  Hon.  Chas.  E.  Coon, 
Assistant  Secretary.) 

VVe  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servants, 

Vermont  Marble  Company, 

By  BEDFIELD  PBOCTOB, 

President. 


(The  same.) 

Proctor,  Vt.,  November  19,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.  : 

Sir  : 

******  # 

Since  mailing  you  our  letter,  above  referred  to,  we  have  learned  that 
at  the  port  of  Boston,  at  least,  the  Italian  palm  is  reduced  to  feet  by 
multiplying  by  555.5.  If  this  practice  be  general,  the  occasion  for  the 
third  division  of  our  letter  is  removed. 

And  we  are  also  informed  that  your  Department  has  limited  or  ex- 
plained its  decision  No.  22G4,  classing  pedestals  with  statuary,  in  a 
similar  line  to  that  suggested  in  part  “ A”  of  the  second  division  of  our 
letter.  (See  letter  to  collector  of  customs,  New  York,  October  15,  1879.) 

We  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servants, 

Vermont  Marble  Company, 
By  BEDFIELD  PBOCTOB, 

President. 


[W.  K.  Carson  & Co.,  sugar. ] 


Baltimore,  July  31,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury  Department,  Washington , I).  G. : 

Sir  : In  response  to  your  circular  dated  July  24,  1885,  we  reply  that 
at  present  none  of  the  goods  in  the  importation  of  which  we  are  inter- 
ested are  liable  to  an  ad  valorem  duty. 

Such  experience  as  we  have  had  in  former  years  leads  us  to  express 
our  opinion  emphatically  against  ad  valorem  as  compared  with  specific 
duties.  The  former  (ad  valorem)  may  theoretically  seem  more  equable, 
but  in  practice  proves  a constant  temptation  to  fraud  and  therefore  re- 
sult in  injustice. 

We  take  advantage  of  your  inquiry  to  express  the  hope  that  a sim- 
pler system  be  devised  for  levying  and  collecting  duties  on  sugars. 

At  present  these  have  to  be  compared  for  color  with  the  u Dutch 
standards”  and  then  tested  for  saccharine  strength  by  polariscope; 


128  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


bulk  tests  requiring  training  and  skill  in  tkeir  application  and  strict 
integrity  on  the  part  of  both  appraisers  and  samplers. 

We  include  the  latter  because  generally  from  the  same  package  of 
sugar  widely  differing  samples  may  be  drawn. 

To  us  it  appears  that  a more  fair  and  just  method  would  be  to  exact 
one  specific  rate  per  pound  for  all  grades  of  sugars. 

With  such  a simplification  of  duties  It  would  be  possible  for  many  to 
engage  in  trade  in  this  article  who  have  abandoned  it  owing  to  the  com- 
plexities of  the  tariff’  and  its  strong  bias  in  favor  of  the  few  men  who 
control  the  refineries  on  the  Atlantic  coast. 

We  remain,  verv  respectfully,  your  friends, 

W.  K.  CARSON  & CO. 


[McKean,  Borie  & Co.,  sugar. ] 

Philadelphia,  July  25,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.: 

Sir  : We  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  rtceipt  of  your  communica- 
tion of  24th  instant,  on  the  subject  of  ad  valorem  and  specific  duties,  &c. 
We  believe  that  the  present  tariff  on  foreign  raw  sugars — the  only  article 
in  whose  importation  we  are  at  present  largely  concerned — meets  as 
nearly  as  is  necessary  for  commerce  and  manufacture  the  condition  of 
specific  duties  assimilated  to  ad  valorem  rates.  There  are  some  small 
inequalities,  which,  however,  are  not  an  obstacle  to  any  branch  of  the 
sugar  interest  in  this  country,  and  the  remedy  for  which  might  add 
trivial  complications  to  the  broad  and  simple  system  now  in  vogue. 
With  occasional  exceptions  of  comparative  unimportance,  such  as  we 
refer  to,  the  Government  has  the  advantage  of  collecting  its  sugar 
duties  by  the  application  of  the  same  principles  which  govern  buyers 
and  sellers  of  the  article  in  arriving  at  value,  and  in  the  exceptional 
cases  the  Government  is  the  gainer,  for  the  reason  that  while  the  Gov- 
ernment test  applies  with  equal  force  to  all  classes  of  sugar,  the  article 
is  never  sold  in  the  market  for  more  than  its  apparent  value,  but  owing 
to  inherent  qualities  not  detected  by  the  polariscope,  it  is  sometimes  sold 
for  less. 

Taking  into  consideration  the  Government,  the  merchant,  and  the 
manufacturer,  we  believe  that  the  present  system  of  collecting  revenue 
from  sugar  is  just,  and  approaches  very  closely  to  a coincidence  of  spe- 
cific with  ad  valorem  rates. 

Replying  to  a suggestion  found  in  your  communication,  we  have  the 
honor  to  say  that  we  believ'e  our  firm  to  have  suffered  very  heavily  in 
the  past  from  evasions  of  the  tariff  on  sugar,  especially  under  a classi- 
fication by  color  and  where  importations  have  been  landed  on  refiners’ 
own  wharves  at  the  various  ports  of  Inanufacture.  Without  intending 
to  cast  an  imputation  on  honorable  competitors  in  business,  we  think  it 
proper  to  take  advantage  of  the  present  opportunity  to  say  that  it  is  of 
vital  interest  to  us  that  every  safeguard  should  be  thrown  about  the 
Government  weighers  and  samplers  of  sugars  landed  in  bond  on  refin- 
ers’ wharves  or  elsewhere  for  refiners’  account,  and  in  saying  this  we 
do  not  intend  to  reflect  on  Government  officials.  Assuming  polariza- 
tion to  be  honestly  done,  failure  in  the  proper  collection  of  sugar  duties 
could  only  come  from  dishonest  weighing  and  sampling.  We  feel  jus- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


129 


titled  on  this  occasion  in  asking  for  the  constant  attention  of  the  De- 
partment to  these  points,  for  such  u evasions  of  the  tariff’7  have  been 
notorious  in  the  past  to  our  great  injury  in  business  and  Government 
loss. 

Respectfully, 

McKEAN,  BORIE  & CO., 
Per  MARSHALL. 


[George  S.  Hunt  & Co.,  sugar.'] 

Portland,  Me.,  July  29, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Sir:  Your  circular  letter  dated  28th  instant  is  received,  but,  we  re- 
gret to  say,  that  as  our  importations  consist  wholly  of  sugar  and  molas- 
ses, under  specific  rates  of  duty,  we  are  unable  to  make  any  serviceable 
suggestions  regarding  the  ad  valorem  system. 

But  we  will  avail  of  this  opportunity  to  say  that  we  not  only  think 
the  present  schedule  of  sugar  duties  excessive,  but  that  it  is  very  unjust 
to  the  importer,  in  that  a full  T^o  cent  per  pound  is  assessed  for  even 
the  smallest  fraction  above  the  even  degree  of  polarization.  We  thiuk 
it  would  be  more  equitable  if  the  T-Jo  cent  should  not  be  assessed  unless 
the  fraction  of  a degree  exceeds  one-half. 

We  are,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

GEORGE  S.  HUNT  & CO. 


[Harrison,  Havemeyer  & Co.,  sugar.] 

Philadelphia,  September  21,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.  : 

Sir:  In  response  to  your  communication  dated  July  24,  we  beg  to 
say  that  the  duties  at  present  upon  imported  sugars,  being  specific  in 
form  and  ad  valorem  in  effect,  would  seem,  to  our  minds,  to  combine  the 
simplicity  of  the  specific  with  the  merits  of  the  ad  valorem  system  with- 
out incurring  objections  properly  urged  against  duties  which  are  purely 
ad  valorem. 

We  may  add,  that  if  any  change  were  to  be  made  from  the  existing 
schedule  for  sugar  duties,  the  general  principles  now  applying  in  said 
schedule  should  be  adhered  to,  we  think,  whether  the  change  be  to  a 
lower  or  a higher  duty.  We  would  particularly  ask  your  reference  to  a 
letter  addressed  by  us  to  the  Department  on  24th  November,  1884  (copy 
herewith),  in  regard  to  maintaining  the  recognized  dividing  line  of  No. 
13  Dutch  standard,  between  refined  sugars  and  the  raw  material. 

Under  the  existing  schedule  for  sugars  below  No.  13  D.  S.,  with  1.40 
cents  per  pound  for  the  starting  point  of  75  degrees  polarization,  .04 
cent  is  added  for  each  degree  upward \ so,  if  the  tariff  on  sugar  were 
lowered  25  per  cent,  to  1.05  cents  per  pound  for  75  degrees,  then  .03  cent 
per  degree  of  polarization  above  75  degrees  should  be  the  rate  of  pro- 
gression, if  the  principles  now  in  force  are  adhered  to  in  every  respect, 
S.  Ex.  72 9 


130  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Tn  like  manner  tbe  existing  color  lines  for  grades  above  No.  13  D.  S. 
with  their  relative  duty  covering  foreign  refined  sugars  should  be  ad- 
hered to. 

But  we  are  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  the  best  of  all  schedules  for 
sugar  would  be  on  the  following  basis,  which  can,  in  case  of  need,  be 
lowered  or  raised  by  any  given  percentage  : 

Grades  not  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color:  Testing  75  degrees  or  less, 
1.25  cents  per  pound,  plus  .05  cent  for  each  degree  above  75  degrees. 

Grades  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color : No.  13  to  16  D.  S.,  at  2§  cents  per 
pound  j No.  16  to  20  D.  S.,  at  3 cents  per  pound $ above  No.  20  D.  S., 
at  3£  cents  per  pound. 

This  commends  itself  especially  for  the  reason  that  the  sugars  of  lower 
polarization  are  pre-eminently  the  raw  material  upon  which  but  little 
labor  has  been  expended  abroad,  and  upon  which,  therefore,  the  maxi- 
mum of  labor,  skill,  and  expenditure  is  called  for  here  in  refining. 
Note,  also,  that  any  reduction  in  rates  for  grades  above  No.  13  D.  §. 
ought  properly  to  equal  the  reduction  from  the  average  for  raw  sugars, 
which  is  generally  taken  to  be  on  90-degree  test.  For  example,  lower- 
ing the  rate  of  2 cents  per  pound  for  90  degrees  by  20  per  cent.,  a re- 
duction of  .40  cent  per  pound  should  be  made  on  the  grades  above  No. 
13  D.  S.,  whereby  No.  13  to  16,  at  2|  cents  less  .40  cent,  becomes  2.35 ; 
No.  16  to  20,  at  3 cents  less  .40  cent,  becomes  2.60 ; above  No.  20,  at  3J 
cents  less  .40  cent,  becomes  3.10. 

This  should  be  borne  in  mind  in  view  of  the  ratio  of  expenses  of  re- 
fining, which,  if  duties  were  materially  lowered,  would  not  fairly  be  rep^ 
resented  by  simple  percentage. 

To  indicate  at  a glance  the  relative  rates  of  duty  which  we  believe 
are  properly  applicable  to  different  grades  of  sugar  we  inclose  tabulated 
memoranda. 

Very  respectfully, 

HAEEISON,  HAVEMEYER  & GO. 


Existing  tariff  on  sugars. 


Grades  not  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color: 


Testing  75° 1.40 

Testing  76° 1. 44 

Testing  77° 1. 48 

Testing  78° 1. 52 

Testing  79° 1.56 

Testing  80° 1.  CO 

Testing  81° 1. 64 

Testing  82° 1. 68 

Testing  83° 1. 72 

Testing  84°  1.76 

Testing  85° 1. 80 

Testing  86° 1. 84 

Testing  87° 1.88 


Testing  88° 1.92 

Testing  89° 1.96 

Testing  90° 2. 00 

Testing  91° 2.04 

Testing  92°.. 2.08 

Testing  93° 2. 12 

Testing  94° 2.16 

Testing  95° 2. 20 

Testing  96° : 2. 24 

Testing  97° 2.28 

Testing  98° 2.32 

Testing  99° 2. 36 

Testing  100° 2. 40 


Grades  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color : 


V/tB*  pel  1U. 

No.  13  to  16 2* 

No'.  16  to  20 3 

Above  No.  20 3^ 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


131 


Same  schedule  reduced  25  per  cent. 


Grades  not  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color: 


Testing  75° 

Testing  76° .... 

Testing  77° 

Testing  78° 

Testing  79° 

Testing  80° 

Testing  81° 

Testing  82° 

Testing  83° 

Testing  84° 

Testing  85° 

Testing  86°.... « 
Testing  87° 


1.05 
1.08 
1.11 
1. 14 
1.17 
1.20 
1.23 
1.26 
1.29 
1.32 
1.35 
1.38 
1.41 


Testing  88° . 
Testing  89°. 
Testing  90° . 
Testing  91° . 
Testing  92°.. 
Testing  93° . 
Testing  94°. 
Testing  95° . 
Testing  96°. 
Testing  97° . 
Testing  98°. 
Testing  99° . 
Testing  100° 


Grades  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color : 


No.  13  to  16. 
No.  16  to  20 . 
Above  No.  20 


1.44 

1.47 

1.50 

1.53 

1.56 

1.59 

1.62 

1.65 

1.68 

1.71 

1.74 

1.77 

1.80 


Cts.  per  lb. 

....  2$ 

....  2* 

.... 


Suggested  basis  for  sugar  schedule. 


Grades  not  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color : 


Testing  75°. 
Testing  76° 
Testing  77° 
Testing  78°. 
Testing  79° 
Testing  80°. 
Testing  81° 
Testing  82° 
Testing  83° 
Testing  84° 
Testing  85° 
Testing  86° 
Testing  87° 


1.25 

1.30 

1.35 

1.40 

1.45 

1.50 

1.55 

1.60 

1.65 

1.70 

1.75 

1.80 

1.85 


Testing  88° . . 
Testing  89°.. 
Testing  90° . 
Testing  91°. 
Testing  92°.. 
Testing  93° . . 
Testing  94° . . 
Testing  95° . 
Testing  96° . 
Testing  97°.. 
Testing  98°. 
Testing  99° . 
Testing  100° 


Grades  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color  : 


No.  13  to  16.. 
No.  16  to  20  . 
Above  No.  20 


1.90 
1.95 
2. 00 
2.05 
2. 10 
2. 15 
2. 20 
2.25 
2. 30 
2. 35 
2. 40 
2. 45 
2. 50 


Cts.  per  lb. 

....  2f 

3 

....  3* 


Same  schedule  reduced  20  per  cent. 
Grades  not  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color: 


Testing  75° 
Testing  76° 
Testing  77° 
Testing  78° 
Testing  79° 
Testing  80° 
Testing  81° 
Testing  82° 
Testing  83° 
Testing  84° 
Testing  85° 
Testing  86° 
Testing  87° 


1.00 

1.04 

1.08 

1.12 

1.16 

1.20 

1.24 

1.28 

1.32 

1.36 

1.40 

1.44 

1.48 


Testing  88° . 
Testing  89° . 
Testing  90° . 
Testing  91° . 
Testing  92° . 
Testing  93° . 
Testing  94° . 
Testing  95° 
Testing  96° . 
Testing  97°. 
Testing  98°. 
Testing  99°. 
Testing  100° 


Grades  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color  : 


1.52 
1.56 
1.60 
1.64 
1.68 
1.72 
1.76 
1.80 
1.84 
1.88 
1.92 
1.96 
2.  00 


Cts.  per  lb. 
...  2. 35 

...  2.60 
...  3.10 


No.  13  to  16.. 
No.  16  to  20  . . 
Above  No.  20 


132  REPOET  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


(Inclosure.) 


November  24,  1884. 

Hon.  Hugh  McCulloch, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington,  D.  C. : 

Sir  : In  common  with  every  one  else  engaged  in  the  business  of  sugar  refining  in 
this  country,  we  are  feeling  greatly  concerned  at  the  provision  of  certain  commercial 
treaties  lately  negotiated,  wherein  No.  16  Dutch  standard  is  made  the  dividing  line 
for  duty  classification  of  foreign  sugars.  The  Mexican,  the  Santo  Domingo,  and  the 
Spanish  treaties,  all,  we  believe,  propose  to  admit  free  of  duty  sugars  not  above  No. 
16  Dutch  standard  in  color. 

These  treaties,  it  is  true,  are  not  yet  ratified.  In  view,  however,  of  the  serious 
bearing  upon  so  extensive  an  industry  as  sugar  refining  in  this  country,  we  feel  ex- 
tremely anxious  at  any  attempt  to  confuse  or  obliterate  the  well-established  line  of 
separation  between  refined  sugar  and  the  raw  material. 

You  are  aware  of  the  circumstances  under  which  No.  13  Dutch  standard  was  deter 
mined  as  the  true  dividing  line  at  the  last  revision  of  the  tariff ; and  we  believe  you 
well  know  of  the  satisfactory  working  of  that  feature  of  the  schedule  still  in  force 
for  sugar  duties.  We  are  led,  therefore,  to  ask  very  earnestly  your  attention  to  this 
subject,  believing,  as  we  do,  that  you  will  agree  with  us  in  recognizing  the  fact  that 
No.  13  Dutch  standard  should  be  retained  as  the  dividing  line  under  any  or  all  changes 
of  the  tariff  likely  to  be  suggested  to  the  Department  or  to  Congress. 

While  the  machinery,  tools,  &c.,  of  American  refiners  are  taxed  it  will  not  be  diffi- 
cult to  perceive  why  we,  with  our  extensive  refineries,  newly  rebuilt,  and  a numerous 
force  of  employes  actively  at  work,  are  naturally  solicitous  that  the  line  between  the 
product  of  foreign  manufactories  and  our  own  raw  material  should  be  correctly  and 
distinctly  defined  in  every  scheme  of  tariff  legislation.  Otherwise,  the  discrimination 
against  us  becomes  at  once  unjust  and  oppressive. 

We  are,  sir,  very  respectfully, 

. HARRISON,  HAYEMEYER  & CO. 


[L.  W.  Redington,  sugars.'] 

Rutland,  Vt.,  November  30, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : I beg  that  you  will  pardon  me  for  trespassing  on  your 
valuable  time,  but  my  apology  for  taking  this  liberty  is  your  recent  cir- 
cular requesting  information  on  matters  relating  to  our  tariff  laws,  in 
which  I am,  and  for  years  have  been,  intensely  interested.  I have  long 
made  them  a study,  and  during  the  “campaign”  last  autumn  devoted  a 
large  portion  of  my  time  to  discussion  of  the  tariff,  particularly  in  Troy, 
NT.  Y.,  where  I delivered  three  speeches  on  different  occasions.  Es- 
pecially have  I for  years  been  greatly  interested  in  our  sugar  tariff,  as 
regards  establishing  a uniform  rate  of  duty  up  to  a point  which  will 
preclude  all  possibility  of  fraud  or  evasion. 

The  monstrous  public  abuses  and  evils  which  have  been  engendered 
by  the  long-continued  practice  of  frauds  in  the  importations  of  raw 
sugars  are  the  natural  results  of  our  antiquated  and  unjust  tariff,  ex- 
ecutive mal  administration  of  the  customs  service,  and  unprincipled 
trade  combinations;  and  the  only  remedy  for  such  complicated  evils,  in 
my  humble  opinion  and  as  an  on  looker  entirely  disinterested  in  the 
matter  except  as  a suffering  consumer  and  a heavily- taxed  citizen,  is 
for  Congress  to  enact  such  laws  as  will  render  their  continuance  impos- 
sible under  any  administration. 

Hence,  I cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  views  on  the  subject 
while  inclosing  to  you  a memorial  which  was  sent  to  me  at  the  time, 
and  which  I feel  quite  sure  will  commend  itself  to  your  most  earnest 
consideration  on  account  of  the  unassailable  Diets  aud  unanswerable 
arguments  therein  presented. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


133 


Although  this  memorial  was  addressed  to  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  of  the  Forty-sixth  Congress,  the  facts  and  arguments  it 
embodies  have  precisely  the  same  force  and  weight  to-day  that  they  had 
then,  for  the  sugar  tariff  and  the  sugar  question  generally,  and  all  the 
objectionable  and  noxious  features  attached  to  them  have  not  changed 
one  iota  within  the  past  five  years,  and,  as  one  of  the  largest  sugar-con- 
suming people  in  the  world,  we  continue  to  pay  the  largest  price  for  it, 
while  an  odious  and  unscrupulous  monopoly  of  sugar  refiners,  co-operat- 
ing with  a handful  of  Louisiana  planters,  remain  iu  almost  absolute 
control  of  the  whole  sugar  trade  of  this  vast  country,  extorting  from  its 
people  untold  millions  of  dollars  annually. 

The  present  tariff  was  enacted,  as  this  u memorial”  gives  clearly  to 
understand,  and  it  cannot  be  doubted,  to  protect  the  interest  of  three  or 
four  of  our  leading  refiners  (and  of  as  many  more  money-lenders)  of 
New  York  City,  whose  names  are  conspicuous  by  their  absence  in  the 
said  “ memorial.”  These  gentlemen,  it  would  appear,  have  had  the 
shaping  of  the  schedule  of  duties  to  suit  their  own  interests  and  have 
been  bold  enough  to  openly  boast  of  the  fact  among  their  numerous 
friends,  and  it  behooves  me  to  tell  you,  sir,  that  these  same  men  make 
it  no  secret  now  in  New  York  that  they  are  prepared  to  send  to  Wash- 
ington their  powerful  “ lobby,”  backed  by  that  “ subtle  influence  ” they 
so  well  know  how  to  wield,  in  order  to  prevent  all  legislation  on  sugars 
during  the  coming  session  of  Congress.  Whenever  any  revision  of  the 
tariff  has  been  suggested,  their  efforts  have  been  directed  to  create  the 
impression  that  any  change  in  the  sugar  schedule  based  on  a uniform 
rate  was  solely  in  the  interest  of  the  Cuban  planters,  and  so  far  has  this 
been  carried  that  it  would  seem  to  be  their  aim  and  desire  so  to  arrange 
the  tariff  as  to  exclude  all  the  sugars  from  that  island,  which  now  sup- 
plies us  with  nearly  half  of  all  the  sugars  that  we  need,  in  order  to  stim- 
ulate the  production  of  and  the  trade  with  other  countries,  producing 
the  lowest  grade  of  sugars  known  to  commerce,  and  which  sugars  con- 
stitute the  bulk  of  their  own  importations.  To  pretend,  as  they  do,  that  a 
uniform  rate  of  duty  would  exclude  all  low  grades,  and  thereby  affect 
their  interests,  is,  to  say  the  least,  simply  absurd.  The  present  discrim- 
inating duties  in  favor  of  these  low  grades  have  had  the  effect  to  put  a 
premium  on  them  where  they  are  produced,  and,  as  the  demand  for  im- 
portation to  this  country  now  runs  entirely  on  these  inferior  qualities, 
their  values  have  naturally  been  enhanced.  Under  a uniform  rate  it  can 
with  perfect  confidence  be  predicted  that  these  low  grades  of  sugar  will 
.seek  their  proper  relative  price  in  the  producing  countries,  and  Ameri- 
can importers,  whether  they  be  refiners  or  traders,  will  get  them  as 
much  cheaper  as  the  additional  duties  amount  to.  In  other  words,  a 
uniform  tariff  would  simply  reduce  their  price  in  the  markets  of  pro- 
duction to  American  buyers,  and,  to  a degree,  induce  foreign  producers 
to  make  a cleaner  and  purer  sugar,  in  order  to  obtain  better  prices  for 
their  product.  The  advocates  of  a uniform  tariff  have  strenuously  op- 
posed the  present  system,  and  insisted  that  the  only  burden  the  Govern- 
ment should  impose  upon  that  vast  commercial  interest  should  be  a sim- 
ple form  of  tariff  which  will  yield  the  revenue  absolutely  necessary,  and 
no  more,  without  embarrassing  the  interests  of  those  to  whom  it  looks 
for  this  proportion  of  its  income. 

This  will  be  accomplished  partially  if  the  recommendations  urgently 
made  in  the  said  “memorial”  are  acted  upon  by  the  Government ; anil 
if  Congress  were  to  make  it  one  rate  of  duty  on  all  raw  sugars  not  above 
No.  16,  Dutch  standard,  all  difficulty  would  unquestionably  be  removed. 


134  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


The  practical  effect  of  the  existing  tariff,  as  it  has  repeatedly  been 
shown,  is  to  exclude  all  sugars  not  suitable  for  refining  purposes. 

Official  statistics,  which  are  at  your  command,  will  clearly  show  you 
likewise  that  the  average  rate  of  duty  paid  is  but  a trifle  above  the 
lowest  rate  of  duty  of  the  existing  tariff.  This  proves,  therefore,  very 
conclusively,  that  no  sugars  are  imported  but  what  have  to  go  through 
the  refiners’  hands,  and  consequently  no  sugars  can  be  distributed  but 
what  the  same  refiners  have  for  sale;  hence  the  whole  sugar  trade  of 
the  country,  as  I have  already  stated,  is  forced  through  this  one  chan- 
nel, and  every  consumer  has  to  pay  tribute  to  the  refiners  as  well  as  a 
burdensome  tax  to  the  Government.  Furthermore,  under  a special 
privilege  granted  by  the  Treasury  Department,  all  the  sugars  imported 
by  the  refiners  (one  of  whom,  as  reference  to  custom-house  entries  will 
prove,  imports  about  half  of  all  the  sugars  that  annually  enter  the  port 
of  New  York)  go  directly  to  their  private  docks  connected  with  their 
refineries,  where  no  time  is  lost  in  u dumping”  them,  as  it  is  called. 
The  only  custom-house  officers  admitted  on  the  refiners’  docks  are  two 
of  the  lowest-paid  officers  in  the  public  service,  one  in  the  capacity  of 
sampler  and  the  other  as  weigh-master.  These  poorly  paid  men,  who 
are  virtually  the  collectors  of  duties,  are  expected  by  the  Government 
to  be  endowed  with  all  the  honesty  and  integrity,  the  total  absence  of 
which  virtues  has  characterized  the  dealings  with  the  custom-house  of 
these  very  refiners,  who  have  been  and  still  are  the  champions  and 
advocates  of  the  present  sugar  tariff.  Why  such  a privilege  is  granted 
to  the  sugar  refiners,  and  such  an  exception  made  for  their  especial  ben- 
efit, is  a matter  for  which  I can  find  no  satisfactory  explanation;  nor 
can  I find  any  good  reason  why  importations  of  dry  goods  and  passen- 
gers’ luggage  are  treated  with  such  suspicious  harshness  and  severity, 
while  immense  and  valuable  cargoes  of  raw  sugars  go  directly  into  pri- 
vate control  and  the  duties  thereon  virtually  put  under  the  same  control, 
Such  an  arbitrary  course,  whether  intended  for  fraudulent  ends  or  not. 
must  of  necessity  beget  fraud. 

Practicable  remedies  for  these  abuses  and  evils,  and  their  application, 
have  at  length  become  an  imperative  necessity  in  order  to  protect  the 
public  from  deleterious  adulterations,  and  the  customs  revenue  from 
serious  loss  by  evasion  of  duty  on  imports  of  raw  and  excessive  bounty 
paid  on  exports  of  refined  sugars. 

It  is  practicable,  equitable,  and  safe,  for  the  purposes  named,  to 
adopt  a uniform  specific  rate  of  duty  upon  all  grades  of  sugar  imported 
“ up  to  a point,”  as  Mr.  Sherman  wrote  to  Mr.  Burchard  on  the  18th  of 
February,  1879,  “ which  will  exclude  temptation  either  to  color  sugar 
for  the  purpose  of  reducing  the  duty,  or  commit  fraud  by  means  of 
sampling  and  classification” ; and  also  to  establish  a uniform  specific 
drawback  based  on  actual  duty  paid,  regardless  of  grade  and  cargo 
identity,  upon  all  refined  sugars  exported  from  the  United  States  which 
are  the  actual  product  of  the  sugar  refineries. 

It  is  generally  conceded  by  experts  among  those  engaged  in  the  sugar 
trade  of  this  country,  that  No.  10  D.  S.  is  the  point  that  divides  the  raw 
from  the  refined  article,  so  far,  at  least,  as  consumption  is  concerned. 

Such  reforms,  if  adopted,  will  immediately  remove  the  means  of,  as 
well  as  the  incentives  to,  fraud.  They  will  put  all  refiners,  importers, 
and  traders  upon  au  equality,  and  relieve  them  at  the  same  time  from 
unnecessary  annoyance.  They  will  diminish  the  work  and  expense  of 
collecting  the  customs.  They  will  give  a steady  inducement  to  those 
heartless  adulterators  among  our  refiners  and  Louisiana  planters  to 
produce  a purer  article.  And,  finally,  they  will  give  to  our  55,000,000  of 
consumers  a strong,  honest  sugar. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


135 


It  is  very  plain  that  a high  and  discriminating  duty  on  sugars  is  asked 
lor  by  those  only  who  wish  to  perpetuate  a gross  and  shameful  outrage, 
and  it  remains  to.be  seen  whether  in  the  estimate  of  Congress  the  in- 
terests of  this  small  class  are  paramount  to  the  interests  of  the  nation 
and  its  millions  of  citizens. 

And  now,  sir,  although  the  foregoing  may  not  receive  nor  merit  your 
perusal,  I have  nevertheless  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  I have,  at 
any  rate,  only  assumed  the  prerogative  of  every  citizen  of  this  free 
country  (so  often  assumed  by  our  citizens  in  general)  of  thrusting  my 
little  mite  into  the  midst  of  public  affairs  for  the  purpose  and  in  the 
hope  of  influencing  the  Government  in  enacting  and  maintaining  certain 
laws  which  the  undersigned,  at  least,  considers  the  best  for  the  interests 
of  our  common  people  and  good  government  for  mankind. 

I beg  to  remain,  sir,  with  great  respect, 

Your  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

L.  W.  EDDINGTON. 

Note. — The  inclosure  referred  to  in  this  letter  is  separately  transmitted 
to  Congress. 


[Hiram  Sibley  & Co.,  seeds.  ] 

Chicago,  III.,  July  30,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Your  circular  letter  under  date  of  July  27  is  received. 
The  only  goods  we  import  are  beans  lor  seeding  purposes ; we  buy  them 
c.  i.  f.,  IN’.  Y.  We  would  say  that  as  there  is  10  per  cent,  difference  of 
duties  between  beans  for  seed  and  beans  for  consumption,  the  seller  is 
sure  to  take  the  cheaper  duty,  and  ship  accordingly,  clearly  evading 
the  tariff  laws.  We  give  this  only  as  an  instance  to  indicate  that  we 
are  of  opinion  that  a specific  duty  is  the  simplest,  and  carries  with  it  less 
inducement  for  dishonest  practices. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

HIEAM  SIBLEY  & CO., 

Per  F.  A.  W ABNER,  Manager. 


[The  same.] 

Office  of  Hiram  Sibley, 
Rochester , N.  Y.,  October  26,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary , Washington , jD.  C.  : 

Dear  Sir  : Your  circular  letter  addressed  to  Hiram  Sibley  & Co., 
Chicago,  111.,  and  yours  of  October  19,  have  been  referred  to  me  here. 

We  import  peas,  beans,  garden  and  flower  seeds.  The  duties  on 
peas  and  beans  should  be  specific  and  applicable  to  all  alike,  whether 
for  seed  or  consumption. 

Flower  seeds  should  be  duty  free,  as  they  do  not  come  in  competition 
with  the  American  grower  to  any  extent. 


136  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Tlie  principal  frauds  that  have  come  under  my  observation  arise  from 
undervaluation  and  entering  for  consumption  and  selling  for  seed  in 
competition  with  the  honest  importer. 

Specific  duties,  whenever  possible,  are  to  be  preferred  in  all  cases. 
With  great  respect,  vour  obedient  servant, 

HIRAM  SIBLEY  & CO. 


[Henry  A.  Dreer,  seeds  and  plants.'] 

Philadelphia,  October  24,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , _D.  0. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  July  24,  iu  reference  to 
specific  against  ad  valorem  duties  on  imported  merchandise,  we  beg 
leave  to  reply  as  follows : 

For  the  simplification  and  equalization  of  the  tariff  on  seeds , bulbs, 
plants,  immortelles , and  grasses , we  would  recommend  placing  them  all 
on  the  free  list,  as  is  the  case  at  present  with  plants. 

Agriculture,  horticulture,  aud  kindred  interests,  when  followed  to 
their  highest  perfection,  require  atmospheric  and  climatic  conditions 
and  soils  4o  produce  a perfect  development.  We  have  in  this  country 
as  great  a range  and  as  favorable  climates  and  soils  as  anywhere  in  the 
world,  and  we  are  now  larger  producers  of  American  than  consumers  of 
imported  seeds,  and  export  many  varieties  that  succeed  better  here  than 
in  Europe.  We  are  opposed  to  duties  being  levied  on  this  class  of  mer- 
chandise, for  the  following  reasons : 

(1)  It  is  oppressive  to  the  honest  importer,  because  agents  of  foreign 
houses  find  it  possible  to  import  at  nominal  cost  of  production  or  on 
false  invoices. 

(2)  It  is  impossible  to  detect  the  difference  between  a lot  of  cauli- 
flower seed  at  20s.  and  cabbage  seed  at  2s.  per  pound,  or  Dutch  hyacinth 
bulbs,  named  at  $8  per  100,  and  mixed  at  $2  per  100,  thus  opening  a 
field  for  dishonest  importers  to  drive  out  the  legitimate  merchants. 

We  therefore  pray  that  the  duties  be  removed  on  all  the  articles 
underscored  above  [in  italics],  and  remain, 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

HENRY  A.  DREER. 


[James  Vick,  seeds  and  plants.] 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  August  14, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : Since  receiving  your  favor  of  27th  ultimo  regardingduties, 
specific  or  ad  valorem,  I have  done  considerable  thinking  on  the  subject, 
aud  must  confess  it  is  a .very  hard  problem  to  solve. 

I am  not  surprised  to  learn  “ that  the  tariff  laws  are  largely  evaded  by 
undervaluation,”  as  the  Government  has  done  a great  deal  towards  ed- 
ucating importers  to  think  that  the  oath  taken  when  entering  goods  is 
of  little  value  j for  instance,  if  an  importer  should  purchase  a certain  lot 
of  peas  in  Canada  at  90  cents  per  bushel,  he  would  be  obliged  to  swear 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  .137 


the  actual  cost  of  the  peas  was  $1.50  or  $2  per  bushel  or  lose  the  whole 
shipment. 

Government  inspectors  say  that  importers  must  keep  posted  as  to 
market  values  and  not  make  purchases  for  less.  Naturally  enough  one 
would  think  if  it  is  not  wrong  to  swear  falsely  against  an  importer’s  in- 
terest it  certainly  could  not  be  to  swear  falsely  in  his  favor. 

The  price  of  seeds  differ  so  widely  that  it  is  a very  simple  matter  to 
undervalue  them ; for  instance,  cauliflower  is  worth  from  50  cents  to  $50 
per  pound ; the  variety  that  costs  $50  could  be  imported  as  a cheap 
variety,  and  it  would  be  impossible  to  tell  the  difference  in  the  seeds. 

On  one  invoice  of  seed  we  imported  this  year,  amounting  to  £45  16s. 
3$.  sterling,  the  duties  averaged  1J  cents  per  pound  on  the  dutiable 
seeds,  while  on  another  invoice,  amounting  to  £295  13s.  5d.  sterling  the 
duty  averaged  a trifle  over  2 cents  per  pound  on  the  dutiable  seed. 

We  pay  from  less  than  1 cent  per  pound  to  nearly  $5  per  pound  duties 
on  seed.  Of  course  we  import  but  very  little  of  the  higher  price  and  tons 
of  the  cheaper.  After  looking  into  these  figures,  have  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  perhaps  it  would  be  better  to  have  a specific  duty,  as  there 
would  be  less  temptation  to  undervalue;  and  if  such  change  is  made 
would  say  that  about  2 cents  (not  more)  would  be  a fair  average  duty 
per  pound. 

It  would  be  useless  to  attempt  to  make  a specific  duty  on  one  family 
of  seeds  and  different  rate  ou  another  family,  as  the  seeds  of  many  fami- 
lies so  closely  resemble  each  other. 

We  have  suffered  most  u injury  on  account  of  evasion  of  the  tariff” 
from  there  being  one  duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  peas  for  seed  and  another 
of  10  cents  per  bushel  on  peas  for  consumption.  No  doubt  large  quan- 
tities are  imported  by  commission  men  for  consumption  and  afterwards 
sold  to  seedsmen. 

Yours,  &c., 


JAMES  TICK. 


[J.  Bolgiano  & Son,  seeds.'] 

Baltimore,  August  18,  1885. 

Mr.  Daniel  Manning: 

Dear  Sir  : Specific  duties  are  simplest,  hence  best. 

Ignorance,  self  interest,  ambiguity,  alike  confuse  and  misapply  tariff. 

Few  plain  classifications  protect  the  honest  importer  and  bind  alike 
everywhere  and  everybody. 

Decisions  of  Department  often  make  law,  rather  than  interpret  law. 

Under  the  same  law  peas  are  construed  to  have  two  classifications 
and  two  duties.  The  identical  peas  are  brought  from  Canada  by  some 
importers  at  10  per  cent.,  and  others  pay  20  per  cent.  This  double  clas- 
sification is  unknown  to  the  law.  The  decision  is  arbitrary.  It  makes 
law. 

This  works  and  has  worked  into  the  hands  of  the  disreputable,  to  the 
hurt  of  honest  importers  and  to  the  injury  of  the  pea-growing  interest 
of  Northern  New  York. 

According  to  the  plain  interpretation  of  the  law  the  only  duty  on  peas 
is  20  per  cent,  or  nothing. 

Classification  of  peas  under  “vegetable”  is  misconstruction  without 
plausible  excuse.  The  same  peas  classed  as  vegetable,  10  per  cent.,  may 
be  used  for  seed,  and  parties  are  now  arranging  to  bring  them  across 


138  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

the  frontier  soon  this  year  at  10  per  cent.,  who  will  use  them  as  seed- 
peas,  and  who  did  bring  them  over  free  of  duty  as  seed-peas  under  a 
previous  arbitrary  Department  decision.  These  parties  shift  about 
with  every  Department  decision. 

In  response  to  your  circular  dated  July  24,  1885. 

, Very  truly, 

J.  BOLGIANO  & SON. 


[Mermod  & Jaccard  Jewelry  Company,  jewelry.'] 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  August  11,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Department , 

Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir  : The  circular  of  the  Treasury  Department  in  reference  to  the  cus- 
tom-revenue system  is  received. 

Our  principal  importations  being  in  diamonds,  watches,  French  clocks, 
and  fine  art  articles  for  house  ornamentation,  we  do  not  see  how  they 
could  be  taxed  otherwise  than  ad  valorem.  There  is  such  a great  differ- 
ence between  the  value  of  a cheap  article  and  that  of  a fine  one  in  the 
same  class  of  goods  that  the  specific-duty  principle  could  not  be  applied. 
For  this  class  of  goods  the  ad  valorem  duties  in  our  judgment  is  the 
easiest  to  apply  and  the  most  in  accord  with  justice. 

Though  we  have  no  doubt  that  some  of  the  goods  of  this  class  have 
been  imported  undervalued,  we  cannot  tell  how  much  injury  the  regular 
trade  may  have  suffered,  but  the  specific-duty  principle  would  not  pre- 
vent it. 

Very  respectfully, 

Mermod  & Jaccard  Jewelry  Co., 
By  D.  C.  JACCABD. 


Custom-House,  New  Orleans,  La., 

Collectors  Office , August  15,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  I have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  letters  from  the  follow- 
ing merchants  of  New  Orleans,  sent  to  this  office  in  response  to  Depart- 
ment’s circular  letter  requesting  their  views  in  regard  to  simplifying  the 
tariff : A.  B.  Griswold  & Company,  importers  of  jewelry,  &c. ; Koch  & 
Dreyfus,  importers  of  jewelry,  &c.;  S.  Oteri,  importer  of  tropical  fruits. 
Very  respectfully, 

B.  F.  JONAS, 

' . Collector. 


[A.  B.  Griswold  & Company,  watches  and  jewelry.] 


B.  F.  Jonas,  Esq., 

Collector  of  the  Port: 


New  Orleans,  ,Ju  ly  29,  1885. 


Dear  Sir:  We  have  received  through  you  the  circular  of  Treasurer  of  the  United 
States  concerning  tariff,  &c.  We  import  so  very  little  that  onr  opinions  are  not  enti- 
tled to  consideration 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


189 


It  seems  to  us  impossible  to  have  any  other  than  an  ad  valorem  duty  on  jewelry.  You 
cannot  put  the  same  amount  of  duty  on  a diamond  worth  $1  and  on  another  worth 
$50,000. 

We  do  not  import  diamonds  at  all,  but  we  think  that  the  tariff  (10  per  cent.)  on 
them  is  too  high.  It  offers  a premium  on  smuggling,  and  is  hard  on  honest  importers. 
The  profit  is  little  over  10  per  cent.,  and  the  smuggler  can  therefore  sell  at  the  cost 
price  of  the  honest  man,  and  the  latter  is  at  a disadvantage.  If  the  duty  were  5 per 
cent,  the  probability  of  smuggling  would  be  decreased. 

All  duties  should  be  gradually  decreased  ; we  are  in  favor  of  a protective  tariff, 
but  we  do  not  need  so  high  a tariff’  now  as  when  our  manufactures  were  in  their  in- 
fancy. 

Yours,  truly, 

A.  B.  GRISWOLD  & CO. 


[Koch  & Dreyfus,  jewelry .] 

New  Orleans,  August  12,  1885. 

B.  F.  Jonas,  Esq., 

Collector,  ' ’New  Orleans,  La.  : 

Dear  Sir  : We  acknowledge  receipt  of  yours  of  27thultimo,  inclosing  letter  of  inquiry 
from  Secretary  of  Treasury  Department,  and  beg  to  state  in  regard  to  same  that  our 
importations  of  foreign-made  goods  amount  to  but  a very  small  share  of  our  general 
business,  and  consist  solely  of  watchmakers’  and  jewelers’ tools  and  materials  and  silk 
watch  guards.  The  adoption  of  a specific  duty,  we  think,  would  work  to  advantage 
in  preventing  undervaluation  on  such  articles  as  watch  glasses,  pliers,  draw-plates, 
punches,  &c.,  while  on  more  delicate  tools  and  materials  none  but  an  ad  valorem  duty 
can  give  satisfactory  returns.  None  of  the  watch-guards  are  made  up  purely  of  cot- 
ton, always  containing  some  silk  and  occasionally  made  up  of  mohair,  and  should, 
consequently,  be  entered  as  such.  Undervaluation  is  very  easily  done  on  this  article, 
and  a specific  duty  would  be  far  better.  We  have  discontinued  the  importation  of 
watches  since  three  years  ago,  and  are  dealing  entirely,  now,  with  American  manu- 
facturers of  these  goods,  which  policy  is  being  rapidly  carried  out  by  most  every  im- 
porter of  this  article  of  trade.  A specific  duty  on  watches  is  not  feasible,  as  a move- 
ment of  a very  fine  grade,  costing,  perhaps,  300  francs,  can  be  putin  a cheap  case  (2 
francs)  and  when  in  this  country  be  put  in  a gold  case,  and  the  duty  paid  thereon 
would  be  no  more  than  a complete  watch  costing  in  Switzerland  10  francs.  Swiss 
watches  and  silk  guards  have  often  been  sold  at  almost  what  they  could  be  bought 
for  in  Europe,  and  must  evidently  have  been  brought  into  this  country  on  a much  un- 
dervalued invoice. 

American  manufacturers  in  all  lines  of  goods  we  enumerated,  excepting  probably 
watch  glasses  and  perhaps  silk  guards,  are  making  such  rapid  progress  that  in  ten, 
and  possibly  five,  years  hence  we  will  get  our  entire  supply  of  goods  from  the  home 
manufacturers. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

KOCH  & DREYFUS. 


[S.  Oteri,  green  fruit.'] 

New  Orleans,  July  29,  1885. 

B.  F.  Jonas,  Esq., 

Collector  of  Customs , Port  of  New  Orleans  : 

Sir:  Replying  to  your  letter  of  the  27th  instant,  I beg  to  say  that  the  business  I 
am  engaged  in,  to  wit,  the  importation  of  tropical  fruit,  is  not  subjected  to  any  ad 
valorem  duty,  and  consequently  not  directly  affected.  The  system  of  collecting 
revenues  on  the  ad  valorem  plan,  in  my  estimation,  is  erroneous,  and  fraud  cannot  be 
prevented  in  the  valuation  or  appraisement  of  such  goods.  I cannot  suggest  any 
remedy,  however,  not  being  familiar  with  the  workings  of  the  Treasury  Department 
nor  the  established  rules  for  the  collection  of  customs  duties. 

Respectfully  submitted. 


S.  OTERI. 


140  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[M.  J.  Paillard  & Co.,  musical  boxes."] 

New  York,  September  11, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular  letter  of  July  31  was  received  in  due  time 
and  its  contents  noted  with  great  satisfaction.  We  sincerely  hope  that 
you  may  be  able  to  find  a remedy  to  frustrate  the  many  efforts  at 
evasion  of  the  tariff  that  we  are  morally  convinced  are  continually  made 
by  importers  handling  our  goods.  After  having  given  this  matter  our 
undivided  attention  and  examined  it  in  all  its  phases,  we  have  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  simplest  and  most  practical  manner  in  which  to 
levy  the  duties  on  u musical  boxes”  would  be  by  the  weight.  Inclosed  we 
are  pleased  to  hand  you  a schedule  of  duties  paid  by  us  within  the  last 
few  months,  by  which  you  will  see  that  if  the  duties  had  been  paid  on 
the  gross  weight  (including  cases  and  packing)  at  the  rate  of  10  cents 
per  pound  the  difference  in  our  favor  would  have  been  less  than  5 per 
cent,  on  the  actual  duties  of  25  per  cent,  paid  ad  valorem.  We  also  find 
that  if  the  duties  were  levied  at  the  rate  of  12J  cents  per  pound  on  the 
net  weight  of  musical  boxes  it  would  amount  to  about  the  same  as  10 
cents  per  pound  on  the  gross  weight.  We  therefore  think  that  if  this 
rate  of  12  J cents  per  pound  on  the  net  weight  were  accepted  in  substitu- 
tion to  the  present  one  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  it  would  be  a great 
boon  to  all  honest  importers  in  our  line. 

Much  undervaluation  in  our  line  of  goods  is  no  doubt  practiced  by 
importers  in  the  interior  of  the  country,  where  it  is  utterly  impossible 
for  the  appraisers  to  be  thoroughly  posted  on  their  value ; in  fact  we 
may  say  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  any  appraiser  to  put  the  exact 
valuation  on  musical  boxes,  as  there  are  so  many  minor  parts  to  be  taken 
into  consideration  that  it  is  sometimes  difficult  for  ourselves  to  get  at 
the  exact  value  of  an  instrument  if  it  is  in  any  way  out  of  the  current 
styles.  If  the  duties  were  paid  on  the  weight  all  these  difficulties  would 
at  once  be  removed  and  no  particular  knowledge  of  the  quality  or  style 
of  musical  boxes  would  be  required  by  any  of  the  appraisers. 

Musical  boxes  have  always  paid  the  same  duty  as  all  other  musical 
instruments,  but  we  see  no  reason  why  they  should  not  be  considered 
as  a separate  class,  and  if  the  duty  cannot  be  made  specific  on  all  mu- 
sical instruments,  why  the  change  could  not  be  made  for  musical  boxes 
only. 

We  would  prefer  to  see  the  duties  on  musical  boxes  reduced,  but  what 
we  desire  above  all  is  to  see  that  every  importer  shall  pay  the  same 
amount  of  duty  on  the  same  article,  whether  it  be  5 cents  or  50  cents 
per  pound,  and  this  object  can  only  be  attained  in  musical  boxes  by 
levying  the  duties  by  the  pound. 

We  would  finally  suggest  that  the  duties  on  musical  boxes  be  reduced, 
. as  there  are  none  manufactured  in  this  country  and  are  not  likely  to  be 
for  many  years  to  come ; so  that  if  you  should  consider  our  suggestion 
favorably  it  may  be  submitted  to  Congress  to  place  the  rate  of  duties 
on  musical  boxes  at  10  cents  per  pound  on  the  net  weight. 

Hoping  for  a favorable  consideration,  we  remain, 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

M.  J.  PAILLARD  & CO. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


141 


Number 
of  cases. 

Kilo- 

grams. 

Pounds. 

Duties  at 
10  cents 
per pound 
on  gross 
weight. 

Duties 
paid,  25 
per  cent, 
ad  va- 
lorem. 

2 

650 

1, 433. 25 

$143  30 

$147  75 

4 

1, 093 

2, 410. 00 

241  00 

285  50 

3 

940 

2, 072. 70 

207  25 

199  25 

3 

1, 040 

2,  293.  30 

229  30 

245  50 

5 

1,400 

3,  087.  00 

308  70 

318  50 

4 

1,  250 

2,  756. 25 

275  60 

257  25 

8 

2,  350 

5, 181.  75 

518  15 

577  00 

3 

950 

2,  094.  75 

209  45 

215  25 

7 

2, 190 

4,  829.  00 

482  90 

479  75 

7 

2,  300 

5,  071.  50 

507  10 

546  50 

Total  duties  paid  . 

3, 122  75 

3,  272  25 

Duties  at  10  cents  per  pound  on 

ornss  wfvioTit. 

3, 122  75 

Difference  in  our  favor 

149  50 

[The  same.] 

New  York,  October  5, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  tlie  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Eespectfull.v  referring  to  our  letter  of  September  11,  in 
answer  to  your  circular  of  July  31,  we  would  beg  to  add  that  we  have 
since  learned  that  in  several  European  countries  the  duties  on  music- 
boxes  are  collected  on  the  gross  weight,  allowing  20  per  cent,  for  pack- 
ing; so  that  if  a case  of  music-boxes  weighs  500  pounds  the  duties  are 
levied  on  400  pounds  only,  which  seems  fair  and  equitable  to  all  parties 
concerned  and  coincides  with  the  figures  given  in  our  last  letter. 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

M.  J.  PAILLARD  & CO. 


[Denton  & Cottier,  musical  goods.  ] 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  25,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  July  25,  we  beg  leave 
to  state  that  for  several  years  we  have  suffered  from  a competition 
which  can  only  be  explained  or  accounted  for  on  the  theory  of  an 
evasion  of  duties,  and  we  should  be  glad  to  have  this  effectually 
stopped;  firstly,  because  we  then  should  stand  on  an  equal  footing  with 
all  our  competitors;  secondly,  because  defrauding  the  Government  is 
as  great  a wrong  as  defrauding  an  individual,  and  increases  the  burden 
of  taxation  on  the  community  in  general;  but  a stronger  reason  than 
either  is,  that  it  makes  honesty  in  business  to  a great  extent  incom- 
patible with  success. 

, These  are  our  objections  to  the  system  of  ad  valorem  duties,  and  we 
are  in  favor  of  any  change  that  promises  to  remove  them  without  sub- 
stituting greater  evils. 

Specific  duties  will  undoubtedly  remove  the  evil  of  undervaluation, 
yet,  unless  some  attention  is  paid  to  valuation,  we  cannot  see  how  jus- 
tice can  be  done  to  all  parties.  For  example,  in  our  own  line  of  impor- 


142  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


tations  two  extreme  grades  of  the  same  article  would  be.  charged  with 
the  same  specific  duty,  yet  one  would  represent  ten  times  as  much  labor 
as  the  other,  to  say  nothing  of  the  superior  quality  of  material  used  in 
its  construction, 

The  Canadian  Government  have  a system  of  ad  valorem  and  specific 
duties  combined,  yet  its  working  is  far  from  just  or  satisfactory. 

We  are,  therefore,  not  prepared  to  say  that  we  are  in  favor  of  any 
system,  because  we  know  of  none  that  has  not  some  serious  objection. 
If,  however,  a system  of  specific  duties  can  be  devised  that  will  operate 
alike  on  all  importers  we  shall  be  satisfied,  although  it  may  be  open  to 
objection  on  other  grounds. 

Candidly — as  your  circular  invites  a free  expression  of  opinion — we 
are  not  in  favor  of  any  system  of  duties.  Viewed  as  a protection  to 
labor,  we  think  a tariff  utterly  fails,  and  must  fail  as  long  as  a duty  is 
levied  on  raw  material  and  a premium  is  offered  for  the  importation 
(duty  free)  of  laborers. 

It  is  a mistake  and  a self-injury  to  place  obstructions  in  the  way  of 
the  importation  of  lumber,  thereby  accelerating  and  encouraging  the 
destruction  of  our  forests. 

The  fact  that  the  tariff  is  a source  of  necessary  revenue  to  tbe  Gov- 
ernment is,  in  our  opinion,  the  only  justification  for  its  existence,  and 
we  believe  that  this  necessary  revenue  might  be  obtained  in  a much 
less  injurious  and  objectionable  way. 

This,  however,  is  going  beyond  the  scope  of  your  inquiry,  and  we 
therefore  conclude  by  stating  that,  in  our  opinion,  a system  of  specific 
duties  may  be  made  less  objectionable  than  an  ad  valorem  one,  but  we 
shall  be  satisfied  with  either  if  impartially  enforced  and  provided  with 
efficient  safeguards  against  fraud. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

DENTON  & COTTIER. 


[R.  Sherburne,  plate  and  cylinder  glass .] 

Boston,  Mass.,  September  5, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir  : In  answer  to  your  circular  of  July  28,  1885,  I would  say  that 
for  the  goods  I import  (polished  plate  and  cylinder  window  glass)  spe- 
cific duties  are  much  the  best  for  the  Government,  the  honest  importer, 
and  the  American  manufacturer;  it  gives  all  parties  a more  equal  chance 
than  ad  valorem,  as  it  avoids  the  risk  of  false  invoices  and  the  many 
ways  of  undervaluing  that  are  so  dangerous  to  the  Government  anil 
to  the  honest  importers  who  are  willing  to  pay  what  the  tariff  requires. 

That  goods  only  should  be  taxed  and  not  the  rough  packages  they 
are  tracked  in. 

That  goods  having  various  qualities  should  have  a specific  rate  of 
duties  made  up  from  an  average  valuation,  to  remove  the  temptation  to 
misrepresent  qualities. 

That  duties  on  cylinder  glass  are  excessive,  being  on  assorted  lots 
about  92  per  cent. 

That  manufacturers  are  not  entitled  to  so  much  protection,  and  the 
whole  people  should  not  be  taxed  so  heavily  for  the  few  laborers  and 
manufacturers. 

That  on  polished  plate-glass,  in  sizes  above  10  square  feet,  the  duty  is 
50  cents  a square  foot,  being  on  the  present  cost  158  J per  cent,  on  "the 
cost  in  Europe,  delivered  on  board  steamers,  and  that  is  now  a fair 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  143 

average  for  large  sizes,  being  an  entirely  unnecessary  rate  either  for 
revenue  or  protection. 

With  a duty  of  25  cents  a foot  on  sizes  above  10  square  feet,  the  in- 
crease in  the  use  of  polished  plate-glass  would  yield  as  much  revenue 
and  be  as  much  protection  as  consumers  ought  to  pay,  plate-glass  be- 
ing ground  and  polished  by  machinery  and  the  proportion  of  labor  is 
very  small. 

That  the  required  oath  might  be  omitted  without  loss  to  the  Govern- 
ment and  very  much  to  the  convenience  of  the  importers,  as  those  who 
intend  to  cheat  the  Government  would  not  hesitate  about  taking  the 
oath. 

Yours,  respectfully,  ‘ R.  SHERBURNE. 


[Gallagher  & Gilroy,  and  others,  beveled  glass.  J 

New  York. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir  : In  reply  to  yours  of  the  30th  ultimo,  we  submit  some  facts  in 
relation  to  the  importation  of  beveled  glass,  silvered  and  unsilvered, 
and  a remedy  to  prevent  the  evasion  of  duties  now  practiced  by  im- 
porters. 

Beveled  mirrors  as  now  imported  are  subject  to  a duty  of  .04  cent 
per  square  foot.  (See  article  141,  Schedule  B.)  They  should  be  sub- 
jected to  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  cut  glass,  (see  article  135,  Schedule 
B),  there  being  no  difference  whatever  in  the  processes  of  bevelihg 
and  cutting  glass.  We  submit  an  example  to  prove  the  injustice  done 
to  home  manufacturers : Say  one  dozen  of  mirrors,  size  3 by  5 inches,  are 
invoiced  from  the  other  side  at  $1.50  per  dozen,  making  a total  surface 
of  1£  square  feet,  at  .04  cent  per  square  foot,  makes  the  duty  5 cents  or 
a total  cost  of  $1.55  per  dozen.  (Article  141,  Schedule  B.)  If  the 
same  one  dozen  was  subjected  to  duty  according  to  article  135,  Schedule 
B,  their  total  cost  would  be  $2.17£  per  dozen.  The  most  feasible  way 
to  remedy  this  matter  would  be  to  erase  or  remove  the  word  “not” 
from  article  135,  Schedule  B,  by  proper  legislation  or  such  means  as 
you  may  have  at  your  disposal. 

It  is  impossible  for  domestic  manufacturers  to  compete  in  price  with 
foreign  manufacturers,  and,  as  a natural  result,  the  foreign  manufact- 
urers are  gradually  absorbing  the  trade  belonging  to  home  manufact- 
urers. 

The  undersigned,  therefore,  respectfully  request  you  to  exert  yourself 
to  protect  this  rapidly  failing  industry. 

GALLAGHER  & GILROY, 

12  Peck  Slip. 

BALLEREIAN  & GO., 

13  Baxter  street. 

SOURWEINE  & CO., 

106  and  108  Centre  street. 

S.  H.  HEYDORF, 

106  Centre  street. 

A.  VOGELEY, 

Corner  Elm  and  Franklin  streets. 

JACOB  ZAHN, 

536  Pearl  street. 

RIEVER  & KAHN, 

82  to  86  South  Fifth  Avenue , 146  and  150  Thompson  street. 


144  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[J.  R.  Donnelly,  beveled  glass.'] 

New  York,  July  23, 1885. 

Daniel  Manning,  Esq., 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir  : I see  from  the  press  that  you  have  addressed  a circular  to  manu- 
facturers in  relation  to  proposed  changes  in  the  tariff  laws. 

In  the  manufacture  of  beveled  plate-glass  mirrors  and  plate-glass 
there  is  no  protection  on  the  beveling  of  mirrors,  or  in  fact  any  orna- 
mental work  or  cutting  done  on  plate-glass  is  not  protected.  Beveled 
mirrors  are  being  imported,  the  importer  simply  paying  duty  on  the 
plate-glass  and  looking-glass  plates,  which  covers  within  the  meaning 
of  the  tariff  a thin  glass  known  in  the  trade  as  patent  plate.  Inclosed 
please  find  Schedule  B of  tariff,  with  paragraph  marked  which  allows 
this  omission. 

This  omission  was  taken  advantage  of  by  importers  and  foreign  man- 
ufacturers, and  in  January,  1883,  they  gained  a decision  against  the 
Government  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  since  then 
the  home  manufacturers  are  being  driven  out  of  our  own  market. 

This  industry  is  new  in  the  United  States,  beginning  within  the  last 
ten  years.  On  receipt  of  your  circular  I will  forward  to  you  the  num- 
ber of  hands  employed,  capital,  &c.,  which,  unless  protected,  will  have 
to  be  discontinued  on  account  of  foreign  competition. 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

J.  R.  DONNELLY. 


[The  same.  ] 

New  York,  October  10, 1885. 

Daniel  Manning,  Esq., 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.  : 

Sir  : Replying  to  your  letter  and  circular  of  September  24,  in  refer- 
ence to  beveled  plate-glass  and  mirrors,  I would  suggest  that  a specific 
duty  be  placed  on  beveling  as  on  plate  glass,  which  is  the  raw  material 
in  the  glass-beveler’s  hands.  This  duty  to  be  as  follows  on  the  bevel- 
ing on  looking-glass  plates,  on  the  beveling  on  plate-glass,  silvered  or 
un  silvered : 

Not  exceeding  10  by  15  inches  square,  1J  cents  per  running  inch  ’ 
above  that  and  not  exceeding  16  by  24  inches  square,  2 cents  per  run' 
ninginch;  above  that  and  not  exceeding  24  by  30  inches  square,  2J 
cents  per  running  inch ; above  that  and  not  exceeding  24  by  60  inches 
square,  3 cents  per  running  inch ; all  above  that,  5 cents  per  running 
inch. 

I forward  you  samples  of  beveled  plate  glass,  foreign  and  domestic, 
with  description  accompanying  same,  as  regards  relative  cost  of  bevel- 
ing in  Europe  and  the  United  States.  The  pay  in  Germany  to  a skilled 
workman  is  $3  per  week,  and  we  pay  in  the  United  States  from  $12  to 
$15  per  week.  As  there  is  no  duty  on  the  beveling  of  plate-glass  the 
importers  and  foreign  manufacturers  are  driving  home  manufacturers 
out  of  existence,  with  the  loss  of  capital  invested  in  tools  and  machinery, 
and  are  throwing  thousands  of  workmen  out  of  employment. 

The  clause  in  this  present  tariff  which  allows  beveling  on  j late-glass 
to  be  imported  free  of  duty  is  No.  135,  Schedule  B. 

The  intention  of  the  law-makers,  I believe,  was  to  give  some  little 
protection  to  manufacturers,  and  doubtless  they  sought  to  word  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


145 


tariff  with  that  object,  but  not  being  familiar  with  methods  and  techni- 
calities of  manufactures,  they  left  many  a door  open  by  which  shrewd 
importers  could  bring  in  their  goods  at  less  than  the  intended  rate  of 
duty.  They  (the  importers)  have  been  able  to  do  so  in  this  class  of 
goods  by  simply  paying  duty  on  the  cast-polished  plate-glass  aud  look- 
ing-glass plates  as  such,  and  evading  the  duty  on  the  cost  of  the  bevel- 
ing thereon.  The  classified  rates  named  by  me  would  prevent  this  and 
give  even  chance  for  competition  between  domestic  and  foreign  manu- 
facturers on  fair  terms. 

These  views  of  mine  are  indorsed  by  the  whole  trade ; we  have  held 
many  meetings,  and  I know  the  opinions  held.  If  deemed  by  you  advis- 
able, a committee  of  manufacturers  would  be  pleased  to  call  on  you 
and  give  answers  aud  information  on  any  point  relating  to  their  business, 
and  would  respectfully  ask  if  you  can  help  us  at  present  in  this  matter; 
if  you  cannot,  will  you  kindly  keep  the  above  facts  from  publicity  until 
Congress  meets,  as  the  importers’  and  manufacturers’  agents  would  im- 
port such  stocks  of  glass  under  the  present  conditions  that  it  would 
take  at  least  two  years  before  we  could  hope  to  meet  them  in  our  own 
market. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

J.  R.  DONNELLY. 


[Fraternity Druggists’  Ware  Glass  Blowers’  League  of  tbe  United  States,  glass  bottles.  ] 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  September  11,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : Yours  asking  for  suggestions  as  to  benefits  to  our  trade 
from  simplification  of  tariff  laws,  change  from  ad  valorem  to  specific 
duties,  &c.,  received.  The  last  change  in  the  tariff'  laws  changed  the 
duty  on  empty  glass  bottles  from  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  to  .01  per 
pound  specific  duty.  This  change  was  of  great  benefit  to  us,  although 
the  rate  fixed  upon  was  only  one-half  the  amount  recommended  by  the 
Tariff  Commission,  after  a full  investigation.  There  are  now  large 
quantities  of  empty  beer  aud  wine  bottles  imported;  the  only  reason  of 
these  importations  is  the  difference  in  wages  of  workers  in  this  country 
and  Europe.  An  increase  in  the  tariff  rates  would  exclude  these  foreign 
bottles  and  start  our  idle  factories  without  increasing  the  cost  of  the 
bottles  to  the  ultimate  consumer,  but  we  have  no  reason  to  hope  for  an 
increase  of  the  duty  on  empty  bottles.  I think,  however,  we  have  a 
right  to  ask  for  the  same  rate  on  filled  bottles  that  is  now  levied  on 
empty  bottles,  viz,  1 cent  per  pound.  The  duty  on  filled  bottles,  exclu- 
sive of  contents,  is  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Bottles  are  filled  with 
water,  sent  here,  30  per  cent,  duty  collected,  the  water  emptied  out,  and 
the  bottles  sold  at  less  than  we  can  possibly  make  them.  You  can  also 
help  us  by  making  it  possible  to  get  information  from  the  custom-houses 
relative  to  parties  importing  foreign  bottles,  the  kind  of  bottles  im- 
ported, &e.;  also  by  appointing  men  to  the  office  of  inspectors  and  other 
offices  who  are  specially  qualified  to  perform  their  duties.  The  present 
system  of  civil-service  examinations  is  more  calculated  to  exclude  than 
secure  properly -qualified  officials  so  far  as  importations  affecting  us  are 
concerned. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

F.  S.  TOMLIN, 

„ ^ 19  Third  street.  Brooklyn. 

S.  Ex.  72 10  ’ * 


146 


REPOET  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[Wolff  & Rlieiiihold,  glass  bottles,  cement,  tyc.  ] 

San  Francisco,  August  15,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury  Department.  Washington , D.  G. : 

Sir  : In  compliance  with  your  request,  in  your  communication  of  the 
1st  instant,  we  herewith  beg  to  hand  to  you  a list  of  sundry  articles  now. 
paying  duty  ad  valorem.  By  making  the  duty  thereon  specific,  as  per 
schedule  herewith,  your  Department,  in  our  opinion,  would  render  great 
service  to  the  Government  as  well  as  to  the  importers. 

We  have  suffered  great  injury  on  various  importations  of  Portland 
cement  in  consequence  of  our  view — which  since  has  been  confirmed  by 
the  courts — that  the  barrels  in  which  the  cement  is  packed  are  not  duti- 
able. In  entering  the  invoices  we  deducted  the  value  of  barrels,  which 
were,  however,  declared  at  the  time  by  the  United  States  appraisers 
dutiable.  The  amount  thus  added  swelled  the  value  of  original  cost  to 
over  10  per  cent.,  thus  submitting  us  to  a heavy  penalty. 

The  question  whether  barrels  and  packing  should  pay  duty  is  still 
unsettled,  and,  in  order  to  avoid  misuse  and  complications,  we  would 
strongly  recommend  that  on  all  articles  heretofore  paying  ad  valorem 
duty,  and  which  gave  cause  to  dissenting  opinion  as  to  packing  and 
coverings,  the  duty  should  be  made  specific. 

We  also  would  recommend  to  you  the  adoption  of  the  former  method 
of  allowing  5 per  cent,  for  breakage  and  blowage  on  wine,  liquors,  and 
champagne. 

On  our  large  importations  of  champagne  blowage  exists  with  every 
shipment,  and  the  appraisers  often  not  being  competent  to  determine 
the  true  amount  of  damage,  we  maintain  that  any  bottle  blown  loses  in 
value  one-half.  We  would  suggest  that  the  former  uniform  allowance 
for  such  damage  of  5 per  cent,  should  be  granted,  which  would  greatly 
simplify  matters  and  at  the  same  time  be  equitable  and  just  to  all. 

We  further  submit  that  the  ad  valorem  duty  on  bottles  containing 
beer,  mineral  water,  spirits,  and  champagne  should  be  made  more  uni- 
form, and  in  consideration  of  such  bottles  being  in  most  cases  of  very 
little  value  in  this  country,  a specific  duty  of  1 cent,  per  bottle  (quarts) 
and  £ cent  per  bottle  (pints)  for  spirits  and  champagne,  and  one- half  of 
these  rates  for  beer  and  mineral  water  bottles  should  be  established, 
which  would  be  about  equal  to  1 cent  per  pound. 

We  inclose  schedule  recommending  the  rates  of  specific  duty  which, 
according  to  our  opinion,  should  be  levied  on  the  different  merchandise ; 
also  the  rates  equivalent  to  the  present  ad  valorem  rates. 

Very  respectfully, 


WOLFF  & BHEINHOLD. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


147 


Schedule  of  ad  valorem  and  specific  duties. 


Portland  cement 


Fruit  juice 

Bottles  containing: 

Beer  or  mineral  water — 
Quart  bottles 

Pint  bottles 

Spirits  or  champagne— 

Quart  bottles 

Pint  bottles 


• 

Present  rate. 

Equitable  specific 
rate. 

20  per  cent,  on  value. 

20  per  cent,  on  value. 

30  per  cent,  on  value 
of  2 cents. 

30  per  cent,  on  value 
of  1£  cents. 

3 cents  per  bottle  . . 
3 cents  per  bottle. . . 

25  cents  per  barrel 
not  exceeding  400 
pounds. 

10  cents  per  gallon. . 

fjj  cent  per  bottle.. 
An  cent  per  bottle. . 

3 cents  per  bottle. . . 
3 cents  per  bottle . . . 

Suggested  specific 
rate. 


25  cents  per  barrel, 
not  exceeding  400 
pounds. 

10  cents  per  gallon. 


£ cent  per  bottle. 
i cent  per  bottle. 


1 cent  per  bottle. 
£ cent  per  bottle. 


[Richard  Briggs,  china  and  glass  ware.'] 

Boston,  August  12,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : Deferring  to  your  circular  letter  of  tlie  28th  July  last,  I 
would  say  that  for  many  years  I have  been  an  importer  of  china,  earthen, 
and  glass  ware,  and  I have  had  almost  daily  dealings  with  the  Boston 
custom-house  since  1844.  In  reply  to  your  first  inquiry,  I can  reply, 
without  qualification , that  it  would  be  impossible  to  arrange  for  a spe- 
cific duty  upon  any  of  the  articles  above  mentioned.  For  instance,  plates 
are  imported  which  vary  in  price  from  4 cents  to  $100  each,  and  the 
same  will  apply  to  a large  proportion  of  our  goods. 

You  have  asked  for  suggestions,  and  I shall  take  the  liberty  of  pre- 
senting the  following: 

(1)  All  pottery  products  without  discrimination  should  pay  the  same 
rate  of  duty.  This  would  prevent  the  disputes  that  are  constantly  aris- 
ing, and  it  would  be  equally  satisfactory  to  the  American  manufacturer 
and  the  importer.  The  article  of  stoneware  now  pays  25  per  cent,  but 
none  of  it  is  imported,  nor  would  there  be,  even  if  it  were  on  the  free 
list.  White  ware  pays  55  per  cent,  and  all  colored  60  per  cent. ; some 
of  the  finest  goods  that  I import  are  pure  white,  and  the  cheapest  sent 
to  this  country  is  covered  with  decorations,  showing  that  there  is  no 
reason  for  this  difference  of  5 per  cent,  in  rate. 

(2)  I think  all  kinds  of  glassware  should  come  under  one  rate,  for  I 
believe  the  distinction  is  merely  a continuance  of  some  ancient  custom. 

(3)  The  duties  should  be  levied  upon  the  cost  of  goods  on  board  ship, 
including  every  charge.  The  present  rule  for  collecting  upon  the  value 
of  the  goods  before  packing  seemed  very  feasible  to  me  when  enacted, 
but  I find  that  some  importers  arrange  with  the  manufacturers  to  de- 
crease the  invoice  cost  of  the  goods  and  add  the  same  to  the  charge  for 
packing.  There  are  many  details  connected  with  this  that  I am  pre- 
pared to  present  should  they  be  required. 

(4)  I would  name  35  per  cent,  as  the  rate  on  all  kinds  of  pottery  and 
glassware.  If  we  pay  duties  on  the  packages  and  inland  charges  the 
rate  I name  is  equal  to  50  per  cent,  on  the  manufacturers’  price  on  the 
greater  portion  of  the  goods  imported,  and  I think  you  will  agree  with 
me  that  no  American  manufacturer  should  require  a larger  protection, 
than  50  per  cent, 


148  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

(5)  The  wording  of  the  law  should  be  submitted  to  some  intelligent 
importer  before  adoption.  1 mention  this,  for  in  the  present  law  there 
are  several  inaccuracies.  It  refers  to  china  and  porcelain,  which  are  one 
and  the  same.  In  1844  a new  ware  was  sent  from  England  and  named 
u white  glazed.”  In  making  up  the  next  tariff  a comma  was  inserted 
after  the  word  “ white”  (see  Schedule  B,  No.  12G),  and  it  has  continued 
to  be  thus  printed  until  the  present  time.  It  makes  the  sentence  mean- 
ingless and  gives  rise  to  much  annoyance  to  the  collectors  and  im- 
porters. 

(G)  The  United  States  consuls  who  verify  the  invoice  could  do  much 
to  prevent  fraud,  particularly  in  the  smaller  places,  for  in  my  experience 
no  large  manufacturer  would  be  likely  to  risk  his  reputation  by  falsifying 
his  invoices,  whereas  I am  constantly  asked  by  those  whose  productions 
are  not  large  how  I shall  have  the  invoice  made  out,  and  if  the  consuls 
could  give  the  matter  their  attention  and  judgment  they  would  make 
many  discoveries. 

Upon  this  point  I can  hardly  speak  too  strongly.  The  portion  of  the 
certificate  attached  to  invoices,  which  interests  the  consuls,  reads  as 
follows: 

I, 1 — , consul  of  the  United  States  of  America  for  the  district  of , 

do  hereby  certify  that  on  the  day  next  above  written  the  annexed  invoice  was  pro- 
duced to  me  by  the  person  making  declaration  to  the  foregoing  statefbent,  that  he 
signed  the  same  in  my  presence,  that  I am  satisfied  he  is  the  person  he  represents  him- 
self to  be,  and  that  he  is  a credible  person,  also  that  the  person  before  whom  the  fore- 
going declaration  was  made,  is  duly. authorized  to  administer  oaths  and  to  take  dec- 
larations in  lieu  of  oaths. 

I should  have  it  made  to  mean  much  more  than  it  now  does,  and  let  our 
representatives  abroad  have  all  the  latitude  to  investigate  that  is  prac- 
ticable, and  urgent  instructions  from  you  to  act  vigorously  and  coura- 
geously in  performing  this  duty. 

Some  years  siuce  I had  the  honor  several  times  to  be  called  before  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  of  which  the  Hon.  Samuel  Hooper,  of 
this  State,  was  the  chairman,  and  I learned  the  great  difficulty  that  the 
Government  labors  under  in  getting  at  the  facts  relative  to  a just  tariff 
law.  One  manufacturer  came  before  that  committee,  bringing  a green 
hock  glass,  complaining  that  it  could  be  imported  for  80  cents  a dozen,  and 
he  could  not  produce  it  less  than  $3.  This  was  true,  but  he  did  not  tell 
them  that  the  entire  yearly  consumption  of  that  particular  glass  in  the 
whole  United  States  would  not  reach  four  dozen.  Another  party  showed 
the  committee  glass  pendants  for  chandeliers  where  it  would  have  re- 
quired a tariff  of  800  per  cent,  to  enable  them  to  be  made  in  this  country. 
This  was  owing  to  the  fact  that  these  pendants  were  a special  industry 
in  one'  of  the  mountains  of  Austria,  where  the  entire  village  is  devoted 
to  it,  and  no  other  section  of  the  world  undertakes  to  compete  with 
them. 

I am  confident  that  I express  the  opinion  of  the  whole  country  when 
I say  that  a tariff  prepared  by  an  intelligent,  honest  gentleman,  after  a 
thorough  investigation  of  facts,  and  with  the  welfare  of  the  entire  commu- 
nity at  heart,  would  be  accepted,  and  cases  would  be  very  rare  when 
any  importer  would  be  willing  to  stultify  himself  by  evading  it. 

Trusting  that  I have  not  exceeded  the  duty  you  so  kindly  imposed 
upon  me,  and  assuring  you  that  I shall  always  be  glad  to  give  any  in- 
formation in  my  power  upon  one  of  the  great  questions  of  our  country, 
I have  the  honor  to  remain, 

Most  respectfully,  yours, 


RICHARD  BRIGGS. 


REVISION  OE  THE  TARIFF. 


149 


[The  Manufacturing  Potters’  Association,  earthenware.  ] 

Trenton,  N.  J.,  October  24,  1885. 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Washington,  B.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : The  following  facts  are  respectfully  submitted  for  your 
consideration  in  reply  to  your  circular  of  inquiry  : 

Question  1.  Commercial  designation  of  the  articles,  with  sample  or 
samples. 

Answer.  Earthenware  or  crockeryware. 

Question  2.  Cost  of  production  of  given  unit  of  quantity,  &c. 

Answer.  The  cost  of  producing  any  given  unit  of  earthenware  is  made 
up  of  so  great  a number  of  processes,  in  which  thousands  of  other  units 
are  included,  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  answer  this  question 
as  to  the  cost  of  any  single  unit  of  quantity.  The  cost  of  labor,  also,  en- 
tering into  the  cost  of  any  single  unit  is  impossible  to  give,  for  the  rea- 
son that  some  of  the  labor  is  not  based  upon  a system  of  payment  by 
the  piece,  but,  for  instance,  by  the  “ kiln,”  which  holds  several  thou- 
sands of  pieces,  varying  more  or  less,  according  to  the  size  of  the  same. 
To  any’  single  unit  of  earthenware  the  above  remarks  will  apply,  the 
items  of  operating. expenses  and  interest  also  entering  into  its  cost. 

Question  3.  Description  of  buildings  and  machinery  and  amount  of 
capital  invested  in  each. 

Answer.  There  are  various  kinds  of  buildings  requisite  for  pottery 
uses,  many  or  most  of  them  entirely  unfitted  for  anything  else.  These 
buildings  cover  a large  area,  and  with  the  machinery,  which  is  of  pecu- 
liar construction  and  wholly  useless  for  any  other  purposes,  form  a 
fixed  plant,  the  cost  of  which  bears  a very  large  percentage  to  the 
amount  of  capital  employed — say  65  per  cent.,  the  remaining  35  per 
cent,  being  actively  employed  in  the  business.  Should  estimate  the 
amount  of  capital  employed  in  the  several  potteries  making  white  and 
decorated  tableware  to  be  from  $100,000  to  $200,000  each,  inside  figure. 

Question  4.  See  Secretary  Manning’s  letters. 

Answer.  The  same  difficulties  that  largely  exist  in  arriving  at  the 
cost  of  any  unit  of  ware  would  be  met  in  endeavoring  to  say  what  would 
be  equal  to  the  present  rate  of  ad  valorem  duty  based  upon  a system  of 
weight  or  measure;  consequently  we  are  not  able  to  give  an  intelligent 
or  reliable  answer  to  this  query.  The  subject  has  often  been  under- 
consideration,  but  from  its  complex  nature  no  decision  has  been  reached. 
In  reply  to  your  invitation  to  submit  any  general  information  showing 
the  relative  cost  of  manufacture  of  pottery  ware,  in  the  United  States 
and  Europe,  we  layWfore  you  the  following  facts : 

labor. 

The  wages  paid  in  this  country  cover  the  greatest  item  in  the  in- 
creased cost  of  producing  crockery  in  the  United  States. 

It  may  be  proper  to  remark  here  that  the  rates  of  pottery  wages  are 
more  than  double  in  this  country  what  they  are  in  English  potteries  for 
the  same  kind  of  labor.  In  no  other  industry  will  you  find  a more  com- 
plete and  accurate  array  of  wages  at  home  and  abroad  than  we  here 
present.  It  is  always  very  easy  to  assert , simply , that  wages  are  so  and  so, 
but  here  we  have,  through  the  fortuitous  dispute  of  an  English  labor 
trouble,  all  the  branches  of  labor  in  our  trade  in  England — thirteen 
branches  in  all.  You  will  see  we  have  compared,  by  the  same  kind  of 
a table,  Americau  prices. 

Our  work  being  mostly  piece-work,  and  the  articles  being  unequal  in 
demand,  the  average  earnings  for  three  months  for  each  man  has  been 


150  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


taken  at  fifteen  different  factories,  and  then  to  get  the  wages  for  each 
branch  the  average  of  all  the  fifteen  branches  was  taken,  so  that  no  one 
can  say  the  figures  are  either  inaccurate  or  unfair. 

The  English  table  was  made  from  the  books  of  fifteen  different  man- 
ufacturers during  the  last  labor  dispute  at  Staffordshire,  England,  and 
published  over  the  name  of  Edwin  Powell,  chairman  of  the  Manufact- 
urers* Association. 

Now,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  the  English  manufacturers,  in  showing 
the  earnings  of  the  men,  would  not  place  them  less  than  what  they  really 
were.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  their  statement  is  fair.  It  has  been 
examined  thoroughly,  and  we  think  it  is  not  exaggerated  either  one 
way  or  the  other ; but,  discounting  the  possibilities  and  probabilities  in 
the  case,  the  earnings  would  be  large  enough. 


Exhibit  A. — Average  net  earnings,  after  aU  deductions  for  attendants,  fc.,  of  the  workmen 
employed  at  fifteen  manufactories,  Staffordshire,  England. 

[THIRTEEN  BRANCHES.] 


Number. 

Flat-press- 

ers. 

Dish-mak- 

ers. 

Cup-mak- 

ers. 

Saucer- 

makers. 

Hand-basin 

makers. 

Hollow- 

ware-press- 

ers. 

Hollow- 
ware-press, 
er  jiggers. 

£ 

s. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

1 . 

1 

11 

10 

1 

11 

0 

2 

3 

0 

(*) 

(t) 

1 

10 

0 

2 . 

1 

5 

7* 

1 

7 

6 

3 

0 

0 

1 

4 

9 

1 

13 

6 

1 

11 

5 

2 

11 

3 

3. 

1 

10 

3 

1 

7 

■ 7 

(*) 

1 

10 

0 

1 

7 

0 

o 

2 

5 

2 

0 

10 

4 .. 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

10 

0 

2 

5 

0 

1 

18 

0 

5 

1 

7 

7 

1 

19 

11 

1 

10 

10 

2 

4 

11 

1 

18 

3 

1 

15 

6 

6 

1 

6 

0 

3 

0 

0 

1 

9 

o 

1 

11 

0 

1 

12 

0 

2 

5 

0 

7 .. 

1 

9 

11 

1 

10 

6 

(*) 

(*) 

1 

12 

10 

1 

12 

0 

2 

2 

0 

8 . 

1 

16 

o 

1 

11 

0 

1 

16 

9 

1 

10 

5 

2 

0 

0 

9 

1 

9 

9 

1 

16 

7 

1 

8 

7 

1 

8 

6 

1 

17 

6 

1 

13 

2 

2 

12 

2* 

10 

1 

17 

6 

1 

10 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

19 

2 

1 

19 

0 

11 

1 

5 

3 

2 

8 

0 

1 

6 

5 

1 

5 

8 

2 

7 

8 

1 

12 

4 

2 

5 

4 

12 

1 

10 

%9 

3 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

4 

0 

3 

8 

4 

1 

7 

8 

4 

5 

0 

13 

1 

18 

0 

2 

5 

0 

3 

9 

0 

1 

15 

0 

1 

12 

0 

1 

10 

0 

2 

2 

0 

14 

1 

13 

0 

2 

12 

6 

1 

13 

0 

1 

18 

6 

1 

15 

0 

1 

15 

0 

2 

19 

6 

15 

1 

15 

0 

1 

16 

6 

(*) 

1 

15 

10 

1 

18 

8 

1 

12 

10 

1 

17 

9 

Total 

23 

17 

11 

29 

16 

1 

18 

9 

0 

19 

13 

3 

23 

19 

2 

25 

4 

6 

28 

16 

3 * 

Averages : 

Pounds  

1 

11 

10 

1 

19 

9 

2 

1 

0 

1 

12 

91 

1 

19 

11 

j 1 

13 

7* 

2 

8 

OJ 

Dollars 

7 

70 

9 

62 

9 

92 

7 

93 

9 

66 

8 

14 

11 

62 

* Women.  t With  dishes. 


Number. 

Printers. 

Ovenmen. 

Sagger- 

makers. 

Mold- 

makers. 

Turners. 

Handlers. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ 

s. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

£ 

8. 

d. 

I £ 8. 

a. 

1 

1 

K) 

6 

1 

7 

6 

1 

11 

8 

1 

17 

0 

1 

11 

6 

1 13 

6 

2 

1 

4 

1* 

1 

8 

11 

1 

10 

6 

1 

16 

8 

1 

10 

3 

1 4 

10 

3 

1 

o 

1 

1 

7 

6 

2 

10 

3 

1 

7 

5 

2 0 

10 

4 

1 

7 

0 

1 

7 

6 

2 

5 

0 

2 

5 

0 

1 

10 

0 

1 10 

0 

5 

1 

9 

6 

1 

13 

0 

1 

15 

0 

2 

0 

7 

1 11 

8 

6 

1 

7 

0 

1 

8 

0 

1 

7 

0 

2 

7 

0 

1 

16 

0 

2 0 

0 

7 

1 

9 

2 

1 

9 

10 

1 

19 

10 

1 

11 

6 

2 

0 

7 

1 10 

8 

8 

1 

7 

6 

flont.rnn.t 

2 

9 

4 

1 8 

0 

9 

1 

5 

4 

1' 

7 

6 

1 

16 

8 

2 

4 

0 

1 

7 

8 

(*) 

10 

1 

8 

0 

1 

7 

6 

1 

12 

0 

1 

14 

0 

1 

16 

0 

2 2 

0 

11 

1 

6 

0 

1 

8 

6 

1 

10 

2* 

2 

4 

6 

1 

11 

0 

1 12 

0 

12 

1 

10 

o 

1 

10 

0 

2 

4 

7 

1 4 

10 

13 

1 

11 

3 

1 

7 

6 

2 

10 

0 

2 

3 

0 

1 19 

0 

14 

1 

7 

6 

1 

11 

6 

2 

14 

6 

2 13 

6 

15 

1 

7 

6 

1 

17 

11 

(*) 

Totals 

14 

17 

Hi 

I 21 

5 

9 

19 

4 

4* 

31 

14 

3 

16 

11 

0 

22  10 

10 

Averages : 

, Pounds 

1 

7 

1 

1 

8 

4* 

1 

14 

11* 

2 

2 

3* 

'•  1 

13 

1 

1 14 

8 

Dollars 

6 

55 

6 

86 

8 

46 

10 

23 

8 

00 

! 8 

39 

Women. 


REVISION  OP  THE  TARIFF. 


151 


Average  net  earnings  per  man  per  week,  all  deductions  for  attendants  and  other  purposes  being 
deducted : 


Of  a flat-presser 

The  like  of  a dish -maker 

The  like  of  a cup-maker 

The  like  of  a saucer-maker 

The  like  of  a handbasin-maker 

The  like  of  a hollawware-presser 

The  like  of  a hollowware-presser  jigger. 

The  like  of  a printer 

The  like  of  an  ovenman 

The  like  of  a sagger-maker 

The  like  of  a mold-maker 

The  like  of  a turner 

The  like  of  a handler 


£ 

s. 

d. 

Dolls. 

1 

11 

10 

= 

7 70 

1 

19 

9 

— 

9 62 

2 

1 

0 

— 

9 92 

1 

12 

9 

— 

7 93 

1 

19 

11 

9 66 

1 

13 

7 

8 14 

2 

8 

a. 

4 

= 

11  62 

1 

7 

1 

— 

6 55 

1 

8 

4 

— 

6 86 

1 

14 

11 

= 

8 46 

2 

2 

3 

= 

10  23 

1 

13 

1 

— 

8 00 

1 

14 

8 

= 

8 39 

13)23  7 2 =113  07 


The  total  average  per  man  per  week  is 


1 15  10  = 8 69 


The  fifteen  manufacturers  represent  all  markets  of  the  pottiug  trade,  and  in  the 
case  of  each  separate  branch  the  figures  show  the  average  of  the  wages  earned  at 
each  of  the  fifteen  manufactories. 

I think,  therefore,  that  it  was  not  at  all  misleading  for  the  thirteen  branches  to  be 
averaged  as  appeared  in  Mr.  AckrilPs  letter,  giving  £1  15s.  10 d.  per  man  as  the  aver- 
age of  the  men  in  all  branches  at  the  said  manufactories. 

Truly  yours, 

EDWIN  POWELL, 

Chairman  of  the  Manufacturers’  Association. 

Hanley,  December  23,  1881. 


As  corroborative  of  the  correctness  of  the  above,  we  refer  you  to 
the  Consular  Keports,  “Labor  in  Foreign  Countries,”  Yol.  I,  page  836. 

We  have  taken  fifteen  potteries  in  Trenton,  with  the  average  work  of 
each  man  in  the  different  branches,  for  comparison  with  the  earnings 
in  English  manufactories : 


Average  weekly  wages  for  three  months,  at  fifteen  different  potteries  at  Trenton,  N.  J.,  after 
all  deductions  for  attendants,  <fc. 


[February  22,  1882.1 


Number. 

Plate- 

makers. 

Dish- 

makers. 

Cup- 

makers. 

Saucer- 

makers. 

Basin- 

makers. 

Hollow- 

ware 

jiggers. 

Hollow- 

ware 

pressers. 

Kilnmen. 

1 

$16  00 

$18  00 

None. 

$16  00 

$18  00 

None. 

$21  00 

$12  00 

2 

22  00 

20  00 

$20  00 

17  00 

16  00 

$25  00 

14  00 

12  75 

3 

13  55 

26  14 

17  06 

17  06 

26  14 

12  57 

13  99 

13  03 

4 

22  00 

20  00 

20  00 

20  00 

20  00 

24  00 

21  00 

12  00 

5 

29  50 

19  71 

22  37 

28  41 

None. 

20  25 

17  44 

6 

16  00 

14  25 

13  25 

13  50 

13  75 

24  00 

13  00 

12  00 

7 

20  22 

11  61 

15  79 

15  79 

None. 

22  23 

24  96 

8 

19  36 

17  84 

26  81 

16  04 

16  02 

21  05 

20  28 

12  00 

9 

19  50 

16  00 

14  00 

15  00 

None. 

None. 

14  00 

12  00 

10 

15  50 

20  00 

14  50 

15  25 

22  25 

22  50 

13  50 

12  00 

11 

23  50 

20  98 

29  40 

None. 

None. 

None. 

17  65 

17  40 

12 

17  47 

17  33 

34  75 

23  85 

None. 

20  84 

23  40 

13 

27  47 

25  10 

None. 

30  17 

26  12 

21  65 

16  38 

None. 

14 

22  12 

24  52 

14  25 

13  53 

14  05 

None. 

17  47 

13  50 

15 

20  29 

20  00 

13  56 

18  54 

24  99 

24  91 

17  60 

• 12  00 

Totals 

304  48 

291  48 

255  74 

260  14 

197  32 

218  85 

268  48 

158  12 

American  average. 

20  30 

19  43 

19  67 

18  58 

19  73 

21  89 

17  90 

13  18 

English  average  . . . 

7 70 

9 62 

9 92 

7 93 

9 66 

11  62 

8 14 

6 86 

152  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Average  iveekly  wages  for  three  months,  at  fifteen  diffei'ent  potteries,  fc. — Continued. 


Number. 

Sagger-makers. 

Mold-makers. 

Turners. 

Handlers. 

Printers. 

Totals. 

Average. 

1 

$19  00 

$17  00 

$15  00 

$17  50 

$169  50 

$16  95 

2 

$18  00 

22  00 

18  00 

14  00 

13  50 

332  25 

17  86 

3 

12  71 

17  37 

None. 

14  43 

None. 

184  05 

16  73 

4 

12  00 

18  00 

20  00 

15  00 

None. 

224  00 

18  67 

5 

31  26 

24  59 

13  72 

9 60 

None. 

216  85 

21  69 

6 

21  00 

22  25- 

15  25 

13  50 

13  50 

205  25- 

15  79 

7 

11  30 

19  79 

15  99 

18  37 

None. 

176  15 

17  62 

8 

24  05 

20  16 

17  30 

21  69 

12  00 

244  60 

18  82 

9 

20  00 

15  00 

16  50 

14  50 

None. 

156  50 

15  65 

10 

20  00 

22  50 

16  00 

18  00 

18  00 

230  00 

17  69 

11 

21  23 

30  68 

16  66 

18  30 

12  00 

207  80 

20  78 

12 

15  61 

None. 

21  28 

27  14 

None. 

201  67 

22  41 

13 

20  48 

19  63 

16  44 

20  84 

10  00 

234  28 

2L  30 

14 

20  36 

20  00 

17  28 

13  09 

12  00 

202  17 

16  85 

15 

22  64 

22  60 

16  20 

15  91 

13  50 

242  74 

18  67 

Totals 

270  64 

293  57 

237  62 

249  37 

122  00 

3, 127  81 

277  48 

American  average 

English  average 

19  33 
8 46 

20  79 
10  23 

nT97 
8 00 

16~62~ 
8 39 

13  56 
6 55 

18  50 
8 69 

Note. — About  113  per  cent,  higher  wages  than  English. 


Our  men  earn  no  more  wages  than  mechanics  in  other  trades,  and  not 
so  much  as  some  mechanics.  Besides,  the  potter’s  trade  is  a very  diffi- 
cult trade  to  learn,  and  quite  unhealthy  through  the  inhalation  of  silica 
and  other  deleterious  matters. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  plate-makers  in  the  English  manufactories  av- 
erage $7.70;  Americans  average  $20.30.  English  dish-makers,  $9.60 ; 
American,  $19.43.  English  cup-makers,  $9.92;  Americans,  $19.67. 
English  saucer-makers,  $7.93.  General  average  of  all  in  England  was 
$8.69  per  week ; and  in  Trenton,  $18.50 ; and  so  on  right  through  the 
list  of  branches,  and  the  showing  that  we  are  paying  a little  more  than 
113  per  cent,  above  the  rate  paid  in  England  for  the  same  work. 

Besides,  our  men  are  paid  u good  from  the  hand,”  while  in  England 
they  are  paid  “good  from  the  oven”;  that  is,  they  do  not  get  their 
pay  until  the  ware  comes  out  of  the  oven,  and  not  then  unless  it  comes 
out  good,  and  that  makes  considerable  additional  difference.  The  per 
centum  total  of  labor  entering  into  the  cost  of  pottery  ware  is  not  less 
than  90  per  cent.,  covering  the  cost  of  mining  coal,  digging  clay,  pre- 
paring the  same,  quarrying  the  quartz  and  feldspar,  grinding  and  pre- 
paring the  same,  and  preparation  of  other  materials  for  potters’  use, 
together  with  the  wages  paid  while  the  ware  is  going  through  the  va- 
rious processes  in  the  pottery,  and  also  preparation  for  shipment,  the 
raw  material  in  the  natural  state  in  the  earth  being  almost  valueless 
before  said  labor  is  bestowed  upon  it. 

MATERIALS. 

The  preparation  of  materials,  by  reason  of  the  higher  rates  of  wages 
in  the  United  States,  costs  much  more  than  in  England,  and  the  prepa- 
ration of  them  is  a separate  branch  of  industry  from  the  manufacture  of 
the  goods  in  the  pottery;  but  the  labor  bestowed  in  this  branch  is  in- 
cluded in  the  estimate  of  90  per  cent,  labor  alluded  to  in  the  foregoing 
heading.  The  very  best  materials  arc  located  in  almost  every  section 
or  State  in  the  Union. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


153 


INTEREST,  RENT,  ETC. 

The  rates  of  interest,  rents,  and  the  many  incidental  expenses  being 
much  greater  in  the  United  States,  must  necessarily  form  an  important 
item  in  the  increased  cost  of  the  manufacture  of  pottery  ware,  espe- 
cially the  item  of  interest,  when  it  is  remembered  that  for  every  $100,000 
employed  in  the  manufacture  of  pottery  wares  $125,000  to  $150,000  is 
the  extreme  limit  of  the  value  of  the  total  annual  product. 

REMARKS. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  proximity  of  the  American  potters  to  the 
consumers  gives  them  a great  advantage  in  the  item  of  freights.  This 
is  a mistake,  for  the  freights  from  the  city  of  Trenton  to  New  York  City 
are  nearly  as  much  as  from  Liverpool  to  New  York ; oftentimes  not 
making  a difference  exceeding  1 to  2 per  cent-,  in  the  value  of  the  goods. 
These  remarks  on  freights  are  based  upon  the  normal  rates  of  freights, 
and  not  upon  the  present  unparalleled  low  rates.  To  Boston,  the  East, 
and  to  all  Southern  sea-port  cities  our  freights  are  much  higher  than 
from  foreign  ports  to  these  same  points. 

EARLY  TARIFF  ON  EARTHENWARE. 

Previous  to  1860  the  tariff  on  earthen  ware  was  24  per  cent.,  and  the 
pottery  industry  was  substantially  unknown  in  this  country,  no  fine 
ware  being  made  except  a few  specialties.  When  the  Morrill  bill  was 
before  Congress,  there  being  no  representatives  of  the  potting  industry 
to  show  its  needs,  the  tariff  on  earthenware  was  very  inadequately  in- 
creased, and  finally  was  made  40  per  cent.,  and  this  failed  to  bring  the 
potting  industry  into  existence.  As  is  readily  to  be  seen,  it  could  not 
under  this  rate  successfully  struggle  against  the  great  disparity  of  the 
rates  of  wages  between  the  United  States  and  England.  In  1862  and 
1863  the  greatly  advanced  premium  on  gold  added  to  the  40  per  cent,  duty 
gave  the  adequate  protection,  and  the  pottery  industry  as  known  to- 
day sprang  into  existence,  and  happily  the  influence  of  that  premium 
remained  long  enough  to  enable  the  industry  to  obtain  a substantial 
footing,  and  to  maintain  its  existence  against  the  most  persevering  and 
aggravating  competition  from  foreign  manufacturers.  Nothing,  but  in- 
creased experience  and  the  development  of  American  materials  have 
enabled  us  to  barely  hold  our  own  for  the  past  few  years. 

We  would  like  to  offer  a few  words  in  the  interest  of  the  public  who 
are  the  consumers  of  pottery  wares  in  the  United  States.  Previous  to 
1860  the  English  manufacturers  furnished  all  the  table  wares  to  this 
country,  and  there  was  only  the  competition  amongst  themselves  to  affect 
the  price.  To-day  the  thing  is  quite  different.  The  American  potters 
make  the  price.  Making  as  they  do  at  this  time  substantially  one  half 
of  the  crockery  ware  consumed,  they  have,  from  time  to  time  since  ob- 
taining a solid  foothold,  reduced  the  price  of  these  wares,  thereby  com- 
pelling the  English  potters  to  reduce  theirs,  until  to-day,  under  the  pres- 
ent duties,  $2.50  will  buy  for  the  consumer  more  crockery  and  of  a much 
better  quality  than  $4  would  have  done  in  1860  under  a 24  per  cent  duty. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  this 
industry  has  been  and  still  is  of  great  advantage  to  the  consumer  of 
crockery  in  this  country  by  cheapening  these  wares,  of  such  indispensa- 
ble importance  to  them.  In  addition  to  the  direct  interest  of  the  con- 
sumer in  the  price  of  crockery,  who  can  estimate  the  advantage  to  the 


154  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  ^TREASURY. 


many  who  cater  to  the  wants  of  the  thousands  of  employes  to  whom 
millions  of  dollars  in  wages  are  annually  paid  by  the  many  pottery  es- 
tablishments in  the  country  ? 

“ Home  competition  lessens  prices,”  and  this  brings  us  to  the  selling 
price  of  the  retail  dealers  of  foreign  wares  before  the  advent  of  Ameri- 
can potteries,  and  since.  Here,  too,  we  are  able  to  present  incontesta- 
ble figures,  showing  the  exorbitant  prices  charged  by  foreigners  when 
they  had  a monopoly  of  this  market  under  a low  tariff,  as  also  it  does 
u their”  corresponding  u low”  prices  when  in  competition  with  home 
manufacturers.  As  a guide,  accurate  and  fair,  we  have  taken  an  as- 
sorted crate — a complete  and  regular  assortment — beginning  in  1852. 
The  following  table  shows  the  prices  to  the  dealers  nearest  to  the  con- 
sumers (and  to  bring  the  consumer  and  producer  nearer  together  is  one 
of  the  greatest  objects  attained  by  home  manufacturers). 

To  the  retail  crockery  and  general  stores,  prices  at  which  an  assorted 
crate  was  sold  at  the  different  periods  indicated,  same  assortment  of 
goods : 


1852,  crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  1 $95  30 

1864,  crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  2 .... 210  75 

1872,  crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  3 143  08 

1875,  crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  4 129  61 

1877,  crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  5 110  10 

1882,  crate  of  ware,  Exhibit  6 57  89 

1885,  crate  of  ware.  Exhibit  7 53  79 


The  above  figures  present  a very  alarming  but  yet  instructive  history 
and  condition  of  the  pottery  interest  in  this  country.  The  prices  were 
taken  from  the  books  of  Davenport  & Brother,  jobbers  and  importers  in 
New  York  since  1841,  always  one  of  the  most  reliable  and  conservative 
houses  in  New  York.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  same  assortment  was 
jobbed  in  1852  65  per  cent,  higher  than  to-day.  Then  we  had  no  home 
competition.  The  prices  in  1864  were  265  per  cent,  higher  than  now. 

Briefly  summarizing,  the  case  stands,  thus : With  the  protection  only 
of  a nominal  duty  of  55  per  cent,  in  the  amount  of  goods  only,  (ex- 
cluding packages  and  inland  freights,  &c.),  which  is  equal  to  43  or  45 
percent,  levied  in  the  former  method  on  the  amount  of  goods,  packages, 
inland  freights,  &c.,  we  are  paying  a difference  of  113  per  cent,  more 
wages  than  our  English  competitors,  and  at  the  same  time  have  forced 
down  the  price  so  that  the  cost  of  crockery  ware  i^  greatly  reduced  to 
the  American  consumer.  We  feel  there  is  a great  inconsistency  now 
existing  in  the  difference  between  the  price  of  labor  in  the  United 
States  and  England  and  the  amount  of  protection  afforded  by  the  pres- 
ent tariff,  nominally  55  per  cent,  but  practically  45  per  cent.  The  facts 
of  the  case  being  as  stated,  it  is  evident  that  the  pottery  industry  can- 
not maintain  the  present  rate  of  wages  at  any  lower  rate  of  duty  than 
that  now  existing.  * 

Begarding  the  evasion  of  proper  duties,  we  deem  the  present  method 
of  exempting  the  packages  and  packing  and  inland  freights,  &c.,  as 
opening  the  widest  door  for  frauds  in  that  direction.  These  items  enter 
as  much  into  the  cost  of  the  goods  laid  down  in  this  country  as  any 
other  item,  and  our  goods  are  as  much  subject  to  these  items  of  cost  as 
the  foreign  goods.  Consequently,  we  believe  the  method  now  pursued 
in  computing  duties  wrong  in  principle  and  unadvisable  in  practice. 

While  there  are  some  amendments  in  existing  law  necessary  to  make 
plain  and  easy  the  collection  of  duties,  so  far  as  earthenware  and  china 
is  concerned,  still  we  would  give  it  as  our  unqualified  opinion  that  any 
revision  of  duties  at  this  time,  before  the  different  industries  of  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


155 


country  have  had  time  to  see  the  practical  working  of  the  present  law, 
would  be  il)  advised  and  suicidal  in  the  extreme,  as  it  would  alarm  and 
unsettle  the  general  business  of  the  whole  country. 

Respectfully  sub  mi  tied . 

J.  H.  BREWER, 

O.  S.  COOK, 

JOHN  MOSES, 

JOS.  WILLETS, 
JAMES  MOSES, 

Committee  of  the  Manufacturing  Potters’  Association , Trenton , N.  J. 


[Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  Company.] 

Creighton,  Pa.,  November  14,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury , Washington , D.  O.  : 

Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  October  29  duly  received,  and  we  will  with  pleas- 
ure give  you  such  information  as  we  can.  We  are  plate  glass  manu- 
facturers ; our  investment  or  capital  employed  at  this  time  is  $885,000. 
Our  buildings  under  roof  cover  8J  acres,  and  we  employ  from  430  to  450 
hands. 

(1)  The  article  we  manufacture  is  polished  plate-glass,  or,  what  is 
termed  in  America,  French  plate  glass. 

(2)  The  cost  of  a given  unit,  or  one  square  foot,  varies  with  the  amount 
produced.  We  have  manufactured  at  a cost  of  60  cents  per  square  foot, 
and  again  it  has  cost  as  high  as  66  cents  per  square  foot,  owing  to  a 
heavy  breakage  and  a decreased  production. 

We  use  in  this  manufacture  white  sand,  at  a cost  of  $3  per  ton  ; soda 
ash  (domestic  manufacture),  costing  $35  per  ton ; sulphate  of  soda  (do- 
mestic manufacture),  costing  $17  per  ton;  limestone  (ground),  costing 
$3.40  per  ton  ; arsenic  (imported),  costing  $62  per  ton  ; and  salt,  at  $20 
per  ton.  These  articles  compose  the  glass  proper.  The  cost  of  labor 
runs  from  35  to  40  cents  per  square  foot,  owing  to  the  amount  of  pro- 
duction. The  operating  expenses  are  upon  the  whole  and  not  distrib- 
uted, and  average  about  $42,000  per  month. 

The  other  elements  entering  into  the  manufacture  are  : Pot  clay,  from 
Missouri,  at  $25  per  ton  ; furnace  clay,  from  Ohio,  at  $15  per  ton  ; fire- 
brick, from  Pennsylvania,  costing  from  $13  to  $28  per  thousand,  owing 
to  quality ; wrought  and  cast  iron  for  repairs,  costing  on  an  average, 
$40  per  ton ; Dinas  fire-brick  (imported),  at  $60  per  thousand ; river 
sand,  at  50  cents  per  ton ; calcined  piaster,  from  Michigan,  at  $7.35  per 
ton ; grouud  emery  stone,  at  $70  per  ton ; imported  felt,  costing  85 
cents  per  pound,  on  which  we  pay  two  duties — specific,  35  cents  per 
pound,  and  40  per  ceqt*  ad  valorem  ; lumber,  costing  here  $12.50  per 
thousand ; nails,  at  $3.25  per  100  pounds ; packing-paper,  at  5 cents  per 
pound,  and  packing-hay,  at  $9  per  ton.  These  articles,  with  office  ex- 
penses, are  very  nearly  one-half  the  cost  of  production. 

description  of  buildings. 

The  pot  house  is  a two-story  brick,  65  by  130  feet,  with  iron  roof,  and 
contains  one  steam-engine  and  two  iron  mills  for  grinding. 

The  glass  house,  or  casting  department,  is  680  feet  long  by  160  feet 
wide,  containing  three  melting  furnaces  and  sixty  annealing  ovens,  each 


15G  report  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury. 

17  by  46  feet  in  size,  the  whole  representing  1,500  perch  of  stone  ma- 
sonry and  over  2,500,000  brick.  Also  in  this  building  are  two  rolling 
tables,  each  of  30  tons  weight,  and  two  casting  rollers  of  5 tons’  weight 
each,  with  a double  set  of  cranes,  carriages,  and  other  tools. 

Next  to  this  department  comes  the  grinding  machinery,  in  three  framo 
buildings,  No.  1,  70  by  SO  feet ; No.  2,  80  by  250  feet ; No.  3,  105  by  200 
feet.  In  these  rooms  are  eight  grinding  machines,  of  30  tons  weight 
each.  These  are  operated  each  by  a separate  steam-engine  of  80  horse- 
power. 

Next  to  this  is  the  boiler  house,  a brick  building  60  by  100  feet.  This 
contains  two  batteries  of  5 boilers  each,  total  horse-power,  800.  Also 
two  steam-engines  and  two  steam-pumping  engines. 

Next  is  the  plaster-house,  a frame  building  39  by  70  feet,  containing 
two  calcining  furnaces  and  two  sets  of  grinding  machines,  reels,  bolts, 
elevators,  and  bins,  for  holding  material. 

Adjoining  this  is  the  examining  and  trimming  room,  a frame  building, 
105  by  120  feet,  containing  tables  and  racks  for  holding  glass. 

Next  and  adjoining  is  the  polishing  department,  a frame  building, 
108  by  200  feet,  containing  2 steam-engines  of  200  horse  power  each, 
operating  17  polishing  machines,  all  iron,  and  weighing,  total,  440  tons. 

Next  and  adjoining  this  is  the  washing,  inspection,  and  ware  room, 
a frame  building,  60  by  202  feet,  containing  70  racks  for  holding  glass, 
cutting-tables,  tools,  &c. 

Next  and  in  addition  to  this  is  the  beveling  and  silvering  depart- 
ment, a frame  building,  30  by  130  feet,  two  stories  high,  which  contains 
8 grinding  and  4 polishing  machines  for  grinding  and  polishing  bevels, 
and  4 silvering  tables,  all  operated  by  1 steam  engine  of  40  horse- 
power. 

Next  is  a frame  house,  30  by  320,  into  which  is  received  and  stored 
all  raw  materials. 

In  addition  to  the  works,  we  own  and  operate  a foundry  and  smith  - 
shop,  a frame  building,  40  by  130  feet.  This  department  employs  30 
men,  who  are  kept  constantly  at  work  repairing  and  rebuilding  new 
parts  of  machinery.  The  foundry  contains  1 cupola,  crane,*  flasks, 
tools,  &c. ; machine  shop,  1 boiler  of  35  horse-power,  4 iron  turning- 
lathes,  3 drill  presses,  2 iron-planing  machines,  and  1 large  boring- 
machine.  The  smith-shop  has  2 forges  and  necessary  tools. 

Foreign  or  imported  plate-glass  is  subject  to  a specific  duty,  which  is. 


as  it  should  be,  as  follows : 

Cents. 

% 

Plates  in  sizes  containing  from  0 to  1 square  foot per  square  foot..  3 

riates  in  sizes  containing  from  1 to  3 square  feet do 6 

Plates  in  sizes  containing  from  5 to  10  square  feet do 25 

Plates  in  sizes  containing  more  than  10  square  feet do 50 


We  make  no  objection  to  this  rate  of  duty,  but  desire  to  have  it  re- 
main as  it  now  is — a specific  duty — and  at  same  rates  as  above.  Although 
the  rates  on  the  smaller  sizes  are  such  as  to  enable  the  importers  to 
sell  those  sizes  far  below  the  cost  of  production  in  America,  and  on 
such  sizes  we  are  forced  to  meet  their  prices  at  a heavy  loss;  but,  as 
stated  above,  we  are  satisfied  with  the  present  rate  of  duty,  provided 
the  payment  of  same  is  not  evaded. 

(5)  We  do  not  claim  any  advantage  or  disadvantage  of  location. 
Our  market  is  the  whole  of  the  United  States.  We  are  compelled  to 
deliver  sound  aud  pay  freights  on  our  entire  sales.  Aud  while  freights 
are  very  high  to  the  Western  States,  they  are  lower  to  the  Eastern, 
which  about  equalizes  freights  with  our  competitors. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


157 


Oar  labor  employed  is  of  all  nationalities,  bat  chiefly  American. 
Two-thirds  is  skilled  labor,  for  which  we  are  compelled  to  pay  good 
wages.  It  is  classified  as  follows  : 

First  class  are  the  shop  foremen,  whom  we  pay  $24  per  week. 

Second  class  are  the  gang  foremen,  who  receives  $18  and  $20  per 
week. 

Third  class  are  machine  operators,  layers,  &c.,  who  receive  $13.50 
to  $15  per  week. 

Fourth  class  receive  $10.50  and  fifth  class  $9  per  week. 

The  above  are  all  skilled  workmen.  The  common  labor  we  pay  $7.50 
per  week. 

The  wages  paid  in  France  and  Belgium  are  as  follows : First  class, 
$12 ; second  class,  $7.50  per  week;  third  class,  $6  per  week ; fourth 
and  fifth  class,  $4.50  per  week. 

We  are  unable  to  show  the  cost  of  manufactured  plate-glass  in 
foreign  countries,  only  we  know  that  the  cost  of  labor  is  less  than  one- 
half  of  what  it  is  here,  and  we  believe  the  cost  of  material  is  about  one- 
third  lower  than  we  pay  for  the  same  article  in  America. 

In  reply  to  your  last  request  we  beg  to  state  that  we  believe  the 
present  laws  imposing  tax  on  plate-glass  have  been  evaded  in  different 
ways.  For  one  instance  we  cite  the  case  of  E.  A.  Boyd,  which  goes  to 
show  that  the  law  can  be  evaded. 

Again,  false  invoices,  showing  a certain  number  of  cases  containing 
a given  number  of  plates  of  a given  size.  As  these  cases  are  seldom  if 
ever  opened  in  the  presence  of  a Government  official,  these  false  invoices 
are  never  discovered.  The  laws  can  also  be  evaded  by  removing  the 
glass  from  the  case  and  filling  with  broken  glass,  which  is  on  the  free 
list.  This  case  may  have  contained  500  square  feet  of  glass,  taxable  at 
50  cents  per  foot,  or  $250.  The  inspector  not  being  present  to  see  the 
case  opened,  can  only  take  the  report  of  the  importer.  The  glass  in 
the  case  is  reported  to  the  custom-house  as  broken,  the  Government 
loses  $250,  and  we,  the  American  manufacturers,  are  compelled  to  meet 
this  competition. 

While  we  have  no  positive  proof  now  that  this  is  being  done,  yet  wp 
are  certain  that  the  tax  is  being  evaded,  from  the  fact  that  plate  glass 
cannot  be  imported  and  sold  at  present  prices  without  a heavy  loss  to 
the  importers.  If  we  are  not  correct  in  this  statement,  why  is  it  that 
merchants  outside  of  seaboard  cities  never  import  plate  glass'?  The 
answer  is,  they  do  not  understand  it,  or,  in  other  words,  as  an  importer 
informed  a Western  merchant  who  was  going  to  make  the  attempt, 
“You  don’t  understand  working  customs  officials.” 

The  only  means  of  correcting  this  defrauding  of  the  Government  is 
to  appoint  honest  men  as  inspectors,  discard  all  purchase  bills  or  in- 
voices coming  from  Europe,  instruct  your  inspector  to  measure  every 
plate  as  it  comes  from  the  case,  and  we  have  no  doubt  you  will  find  a 
large  increase  from  the  revenue  upon  this  one  article  alone. 

American  plate  glass  is  sold  at  from  5 to  10  per  cent,  lower  price  than 
the  imported.  The  foreign  is  given  the  preference  at  all  times  at  the 
same  price. 

When  the  manufacture  of  plate  glass  was  first  commenced  in  America, 
some  fifteen  years  ago,  the  average  selling  price  of  polished  plate  glass 
was  over  $2  per  square  foot.  We  had  the  same  duty  then  that  we  have 
to  day,  yet  every  dollar  that  was  invested  in  its  manufacture  was  lost, 
and  no  company  made  one  dollar  until  after  1881  or  1882. 

The  cost  of  production  at  that  time  was  too  great,  but  it  has  been 
gradually  reduced  until  the  Americans  of  co-day  can  sell  their  glass  at 


158 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


an  average  of  75  cents  per  square  foot,  and  make  a small  profit.  Had 
it  not  been  for  the  protection  the  Government  gave  us  there  would  never 
have  been  one  foot  of  plate  glass  manufactured  in  America.  Take  into 
consideration  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  entirely  lost  in  the 
attempt  to  manufacture  it  in  this  country.  Was  it  not  enough,  even 
with  the  protection  we  have,  to  discourage  parties  from  engaging  in  its 
manufacture  ? 

We  do  not  feel  yet  that  we  are  able  to  stand  alone ; we  do  not  ask  for 
an  increase  of  duty,  but  we  do  ask  that  all  the  importers  be  asked  to 
pay  this  tax  as  imposed;  and  we  promise  within  the  next  five  years  to 
give  the  American  people  plate  glass  equal  in  quality  to  the  imported, 
and  at  much  lower  prices  than  those  of  to-day.  * 

In  conclusion,  we  again  urge  the  careful  measurement  of  each  plate 
of  glass  as  taken  from  the  case,  either  at  the  docks  or  in  the  Govern- 
ment wareroom,  as  the  only  measure  by  which  the  duties  now  imposed 
can  be  collected. 

Yours,  respectfully, 


EDWAED  FOED, 

President  Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  Company. 


[De  Pauw’s  American  Plate  Glass  Works.] 

New  Albany,  Ind.,  October  30,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury , Washington , 1).  C.  : 

Sir  : Your  circular  letter  of  July  18  was  received  at  this  office 
while  I was  away  from  home  on  my  summer  vacation.  It  was  mislaid 
by  one  of  my  young  men  and  has  but  recently  come  to  my  attention. 

Of  course  you  are  aware  that  all  duties  on  plate  glass  are  specific,  and 
I respectfully  urge  that  they  be  so  retained.  While  a considerable  por- 
tion of  the  plate  glass  imported  into  this  country  has  unquestionably 
paid  a lower  rate  of  duty  than  the  schedule,  yet,  in  my  judgment,  the 
frauds  upon  the  Government  would  be  vastly  greater  were  an  ad  valo- 
rem duty  adopted. 

Please  permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  the  drawback  clause  on 
plate  glass.  Of  course  where  the  law  is  honestly  enforced  the  drawback, 
as  intended  by  the  law,  is  proper  and  right,  but  it  is  of  common  report 
amongst  the  trade  (and  the  investigations  made  by  the  Government 
some  years  past  of  the  affairs  of  Platt  & Boyd,  importers,  in  New  York 
City,  would  seem  to  indicate  that  these  reports  were  not  without  founda- 
tion) that  very  great  advantage  is  taken  of  the  drawback  by  dishonest 
importers.  To  specify : Plate-glass  importations  are  rarely,  if  ever,  ex- 
amined on  the  dock  or  in  the  custom-house ; the  cases  are  conveyed 
from  the  ship  directly  to  the  warehouse  of  the  importer.  It  is  charged 
that  some  importers  keep  a stock  of  broken  glass  constantly  on  hand, 
and  that  upon  receipt  of  a case  (before  the  arrival  of  the  inspector)  the 
lid  is  broken  off,  sound  glass  taken  out,  broken  pieces  putin,  and  the  lid 
fastened  on  again.  When  the  inspector  calls  the  boxes  are  opened  in 
his  presence,  broken  pieces  found,  and  rebate  covering  all  or  most  of 
the  duty  assessed.  In  fact,  I have  heard  it  charged  that  one  set  of 
broken  glass  has  done  service  in  more  than  a thousand  cases.  It  strikes 
me  that  a single  strip  might  be  taken  off’  the  boxes  at  the  dock,  or  the 
boxes  packed  with  sufficient  opening  at  one  end  or  side  to  enable  the 
inspector  to  discover,  before  the  cases  are  removed  from  the  dock, 
whether  or  not  any  of  the  contents  is  broken. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


159 


In  relation  to  the  cost  of  plate  glass  in  the  United  States,  I beg  to 
say  that,  while  the  industry  is  a new  one,  it  has  gone  through  a great 
many  trials  and  tribulations.  Seven  factories,  to  my  knowledge,  have 
been  attempted  in  this  country  ; but  three  of  them  are  in  operation 
to-day;  each  of  the  others  has  made  a complete  failure  in  the  endeavor 
to  make  plate  glass  at  a profit  in  this  country.  The  last  to  succumb  is 
the  Jeffersonville  Plate  Glass  Company,  of  Jeffersonville,  Ind.,  which 
has  within  the  past  thirty  days  again  failed. 

I estimate  that  labor  in  the  manufacture  of  plate  glass  (including  the 
labor  upon  materials  used)  is  about  75  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  the  same. 
I estimate  that  the  cost  of  a plate,  depending  entirely  upon  its  size,  is 
from  25  cents  to  $1.50  per  square  foot,  averaging  about  75  cents  per 
square  foot. 

The  labor  in  Europe  is,  as  near  as  I can  ascertain,  about  35  per  cent, 
of  what  it  is  in  this  country. 

The  present  average  price  of  plate  glass  is  about  77  cents  per  square 
foot;  so  that,  counting  bad  debts,  expense  of  collecting,  &c.,  there  is 
hardly  room  for  expecting  more  than  a new  dollar  for  an  old. 

I take  the  liberty  of  inclosing  a copy  of  a letter  from  my  father  to 
Hon.  W.  U.  Morrison  on  the  same  subject. 

Hoping  my  reply  will  be  in  time  for  your  purpose,  I am, 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 


N.  T.  De  PAUW, 

Manager. 


New  Albany,  Ind.,  February  14,  18 

Hon.  W.  R.  Morrison, 

Chairman,  Washington , City,  D.  C. : 

My  Dear  Sir  : Inclosed  I have  the  honor  of  handing  you  a paper  which  will  give 
you  some  facts  in  relation  to  the  manufacture  of  plate  glass  in  this  and  other  lands. 

Owing  to  the  determined  opposition  of  European  manufacturers,  every  attempt  to 
manufacture  plate  glass  in  America  has  been  a sad  failure,  resulting  in  financial  ruin 
and  disaster  to  the  undertakers,  until  I took  hold  of  it  at  this  place. 

After  a fight  of  nearly  ten  years,  in  which  the  French,  Belgian,  and  English  manu- 
facturers combined  and  did  their  utmost  to  crush  me,  in  which  struggle  I lost  more 
than  $600,000,  and  gave  it  the  most  earnest  effort  of  my  life,  I finally  succeeded,  in 
1879,  in  making  plate  glass  (equal  to  any  in  the  world)  without  loss  ; since  when 
there  has  been  a small  profit,  but  in  no  one  year  exceeding  5 per  cent,  on  the  capital 
invested. 

Hence  you  see  that  a slight  reduction  of  tariff  duties  might  be  disastrous. 

I feel  confident  that  if  present  tariff  duties  are  maintained,  the  push,  energy,  and 
pluck  of  Americans  are  such  that  before  1900  they  will  accomplish  that  which  took 
the  Englishmen  and  Frenchmen  three  hundred  years  to  accomplish.  Namely,  that 
we  will  manufacture  all  the  plate  glass  the  country  requires,  and  furnish  it  at  such 
rates  as  to  defy  competition. 

The  facts  are,  before  plate  glass  was  made  in  America  the  foreigner  compelled  us  to 
pay  $2.50  per  foot.  When  American  works  were  being  established  (to  discourage  us), 
they  reduced  the  price  to  $1.50  per  foot.  The  sharp  competition  and  determined  fight 
that  we  have  made  has  reduced  the  price  gradually  until  now  the  average  price  of 
all  sizes  is  about  80  cents  per  foot,  while  the  English  and  French  and  Belgian  con- 
sumer pays  over  60  cents  per  foot. 

Americans  can  do  anything  that  can  be  done  by  men.  Hence  I confidently  reiter- 
ate that  we  shall,  with  improved  methods  and  skill,  in  a few  years,  produce  this  ar- 
ticle as  low  as  it  can  be  produced  anywhere  in  the  world. 

Therefore,  in  addition  to  national  pride,  I urge  as  a question  of  dollars  and  cents 
that  it  will  be  wise  to  maintain  present  duties.  I trust  that  you  will  not  permit  my- 
self and  other  American  plate-glass  manufacturers  to  be  crushed.  Please  stand  by  us. 
I am,  with  high  regard,  very  respectfully  yours, 

W.  C.  De  PAUW. 

P.  g. — it  is  proper  to  say  that  owing  to  the  great  flood  of  February,  1883,  and  sharp 
competition  we  did  not  make  a dollar  last  year,  and  this  flood  will  so  damage  us  to 
make  profits  impossible  in  1884.  Is  it  uiise  to  crush  us? 


160  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Plate  glass  is  essentially  a luxury. 

Not  a foot  of  large  plate  glass  is  used  by  farmers,  laborers,  or  auy  but  the  wealthy. 
The  duty  on  small  plate,  such  as  used  by  poor  people,  is  only  15  per  cent,  to  20  per 
cent. 


Plate-glass  wages. 


Occupation. 

i Amerioan. 

French. 

German. 

j Belgian. 

English. 

Foremen  casting-house 

..per  week. . 

$22  50 

$13  60 

$9  37 

$9  00 

1 

Casting-house  mixers 

do.... 

8 33 

5 62 

5 50 

$6  96 

Furnace  and  table  men 

do 

12  00 

6 00 

6 25 

7 50 

9 36 

Grinding-men 

do 

14  70 

6 90 

4 87 

4 80 

10  92 

Grinding-boys 

do 

4 36 

1 80 

1 87 

2 70 

3 36 

Smoothing-men 

do.... 

14  50 

6 90 

6 87 

8 00 

10  92 

Smoothing- women 

do 

6 50 

1 86 

1 87 

2 58 

2 40 

Smoothing-girls 

do 

4 85 

1 50 

1 50 

2 04 

1 20 

Polishing-men 

do.... 

23  00 

6 90 

4 87 

6 12 

7 92 

Polishing-assistants 

do  — 

17  15 

3 90 

3 75 

5 62 

"Warehouse  packers 

do 

13  15 

6 90 

4 50 

6 26 

4 32  to  6 00 

Machine  laborers 

do  — 

9 70 

4 00 

4 50 

4 80 

5 34 

All  above  wages  except  English  are  wages  current  in  1882. 

English  wages  are  those  paid  in  1878,  as  per  United  States  census  report  that  year. 
More  than  75  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  plate  glass  is  directly  and  indirectly  wages. 

PLATE-GLASS  TARIFF  IN  ENGLAND. 

1671 — Plate  glass  not  mentioned ; but  all  glass  not  mentioned,  37  cents  the  pound, 
making,  counting  3£  pounds  to  the  square  foot,  the  square  foot $1  29 


1819 — Per  square  foot 1 60 

1829 — Under  9 square  feet per  square  foot..  1 50 

Over  9 square  feet,  and  under  14  square  feet ^ do 2 00 

Over  14  square  feet,  and  under  36  square  feet do 2 35 

Over  36  square  feet do 7 75 

1845 — Under  9 square „ do 25 

Over  9 square  feet,  and  under  14  square  feet do 50 

Over  14  square  feet,  and  under  36  square  feet do 62^ 

Over  36  square  feet ♦. . do 75 

1847 —  Under  9 square  feet do 12£ 

Over  9 square  feet,  and  under  14  square  feet do 25 

Over  14  square  feet,  and  under  36  square  feet do 32 

Over  36  square  feet do  — 37£ 

1848 —  Under  9 square  feet do 06 

Over  9 square  feet,  and  under  14  square  feet do 12£ 

Over  14  square  feet,  and  under  36  square  feet do 15 

Over  36  sq  uare  feet do 18 

1856 — To  now,  plate  glass  free. 


The  importation  of  plate  glass  into  France  was  prohibited  under  the  severest  pen- 
alty. For  example,  in  the  law  which  was  annulled  in  1786,  the  tariff  on  large  mir- 
rors (all  of  which  are  made  of  plate  glass)  reads  thus  : “ Importation  of  mirrors  pro- 
hibited under  pain  of  confiscation  and  £3,000  penalty,”  and  under  the  then  laws  a 
failure  to  pay  the  penalty  sent  the  importers  to  prison.  From  this  time  until  the 
conventional  tariff  of  I860,  it  (plate  glass)  has  either  been  prohibited,  or  a tariff  duty 
more  than  double  as  high  as  the  highest  ever  levied  in  the  United  States  effectually 
excluded  all  foreign  glass,  and  firmly  established  in  France  the  largest,  most  com- 
plete, and  successful  mirror  and  perhaps  sheet  glass  establishment  in  the  world. 

Every  man  or  company  who  has  attempted  to  make  plate  glass  in  America  has  met 
with  either  absolute  failure  or  immense  losses. 


BRIEFLY. 


The  DePauw  Glass  Works  up  to  January  11,  1879,  has  lost  over  $600,000,  and  since 
then  have  not  gained  5 per  cent,  per  annum  profit  on  capital  invested. 

The  Saint  Louis  factory  lost  $500,000,  and  changed  hands,  and  since  1875  has  made 
a total  of  7 per  cent,  profit,  or  1 per  cent,  per  annum. 

The  Jeffersonville  factory  lost  about  $300,000. 

The  Louisville  factory  over  $400,000. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


161 


The  Pennsylvania  factory  over  $0500,000. 

The  Massachusetts  factory,  over  $1,100,000. 

The  industry  was  only  begun  about  ten  years  ago,  and  has  only  been  fairly  estab- 
lished the  past  two  years. 

The  manufactory  is  in  its  infancy. 

The  prices  of  plate  glass  in  United  States,  before  a tariff  was  levied,  was  about 
$1.50  per  square  foot. 

After  duty  was  levied,  before  American  factories  competed,  about  $2.50  per  square 
foot. 

Since  American  factories  have  entered  into  market,  their  competition  has  reduced 
prices,  till  now  the  average  price  is  about  80  cents  per  square  foot. 

As  the  United  States  imported  last  year  over  3,000,000  feet  the  saving  by  American  com- 
petition to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  was  one  and  three-quarter  ipillion  dollars 
over  free  trade  prices,  and  nearly  five  millions  over  prices  ruling  before  American 
factories  came  into  competition.  Multiplying  this  by  ten,  and  you  see  the  claim 
American  plate  manufacturers  have  on  the  people  of  the  United  States  for  protection 
while  in  their  infancy.  And  no  part  of  this  great  reduction  is  due  either  to  improved 
methods  or  improved  machinery,  but  solely  to  sharp  competition  of  American  manu- 
facturers with  European. 

While  this  enormous  reduction  and  saving  has  been  made  the  low  prices  stimulated 
consumption  ; enlarged  imports,  and  the  revenue  collected  by  the  Government  had 
increased  from  $770,371.03  in  1874,  to  $1,012,081.34  in  1882. 


LG.  Cramer,  dry  plate  works.] 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  November  21,  1885. 

Mr.  D.  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : As  the  largest  dry-plate  makers  in  this  country,  we  beg 
to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that,  owing  to  the  high  duty  on  glass 
(French  window,  as  American  glass  cannot  be  used)  and  gelatine,  we 
are  kept  out  of  the  foreign  markets.  We  have  calls  for  our  product 
from  Europe,  but  owing  to  above  state  of  things  cannot  do  trade.  We 
Avish  in  this  letter  to  simply  place  ourselves  on  record  as  recommending 
the  abolishment  of  import  duties  on  raw  material  or  such  as  is  used  by 
us  and  others. 

Truly,  yours, 

G.  Cramer,  Dry  Plate  Works, 


[Fred’k  de  Bary  & Co.,  natural  mineral  waters. 

New  York,  September  28,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Sir  : Replying  to  your  respected  requisition  of  the  1st  of  August,  in 
which  you  invite  us  to  express  our  views  as  to  the  regulation  of  the  tariff, 
so  far  as  same  refers  to  merchandise  imported  by  us,  we  submit  the  fol- 
lowing remarks : 

Natural  mineral  waters  being  upon  the  free-list  are  not  subject  to  any 
duty,  except  a duty  of  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  upon  the  value  of  the 
bottles  containing  them. 

In  consequence  of  this  exemption  from  duty,  efforts  were  formerly 
made  to  import,  as  natural  mineral  waters,  artificial  waters  and  imita- 
tions of  well-known  natural  waters. 

S.  Ex.  72 11 


162  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Such  efforts  were  successful  to  the  detriment  of  the  revenue,  to  the 
disturbance  of  legitimate  trade,  and  to  the  injury  of  public  health  and 
interests. 

A regulation  was  consequently  issued  by  the  Treasury  Department  ’ 
(dated  Washington,  April  9,.  1879,  S.  S.  3963),  upon  the  recommen- 
dation of  its  officials  who  had  investigated  the  subject,  forbidding 
the  free  admission  of  natural  mineral  water,  unless  accompanied  by  a 
certificate  from  the  proprietor  of  the  spring  from  which  the  water  is 
drawn,  declaring  the  genuineness  of  the  water,  such  certificate  to  be 
signed  before  the  consul  resident  nearest  to  the  spring. 

This  regulation  has  been  completely  successful  in  preventing  the 
fraudulent  importations  formerly  prevalent. 

The  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  per  cent,  upon  the  value  of  the  bottles  con- 
taining natural  mineral  water  does  not,  in  our  opinion,  lend  itself  to 
undervaluations,  when,  as  in  our  case,  importers  produce  a declaration 
from  the  foreign  manufacturer,  sworn  before  the  American  consul,  of 
the  price  at  which  he  supplies  his  bottles  to  the  bottlers  of  the  waters. 

The  equivalent  to  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  could,  of  course,  be 
declared  in  the  form  of  a specific  duty,  but  the  importer  would  then 
lose  the  benefit  in  duty  of  reduced  prices  for  bottles,  and  on  the  other 
hand  the  Treasury  would  fail  to  be  benefited,  should  the  price  of  bottles 
rise. 

We  are,  very  respectfullv,  yours, 

FRED’K  DE  BARY  & CO. 


[The  same,  champagnes.  ] 

Kew  York,  October  14,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  0.: 

Sir  : In  receipt  of  your  circular  of  August  1,  requesting  us  to  ex- 
press our  views  on  the  feasibility  of  simplifying  the  tariff  on  merchan- 
dise with  which  we  are  familiar,  we  beg  to  submit  the  following  remarks: 
Champagne,  prior  to  July  1,  1883,  paid  a specific  duty  of  86  per  case 
of  12  quart  or  24  pint  bottles,  plus  3 cents  per  bottle,  and  in  lieu  of 
leakage  and  breakage  5 percent,  was  deducted  from  the  duty,  reducing 
the  total  to  a trifle  over  $6  per  case  of  12  bottles. 

A few  days  prior  to  the  adjournment  of  Congress  in  the  spring  of 
1883,  a bill  was  rushed  through  increasing  the  duty  to  87  per  case  and 
3 cents  for  each  bottle  and  abolishing  the  5 per  cent,  allowance. 

This  increase  of  duty  has  militated  very  seriously  against  the  importa- 
tion of  this  article,  for  as  near  as  we  can  ascertain  the  importation  of 
champagne  showed  the  following  result: 

In  the  six  months  previous  to  the  advance  of  duty,  from  January  1 to 
June  30,  the  importation  amounted  to  about  168,000  cases ; from  July  1 
to  December  31  to  about  132,000  cases;  or  in  1883  to  about  300,000  cases. 
In  1884  the  importation  amounted  to  about  200,000  cases,  showing  a fall- 
ing off  of  about  33  per  cent,  to  the  previous  year,  and  for  the  first  six 
months  of  1885,  January  1 to  July  1,  1885,  the  importation  amounted  to 
about  77,000  cases. 

Although  this  decrease  is  partially  due  to  stagnation  in  business,  still 
we  ascribe  it  largely  to  the  unwarranted  and  increased  rate  of  duty,  and 
we  respectfully  suggest  that  it  would  aid  and  simplify  the  importation, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


163 


and  at  tlie  same  time  increase  the  revenue  to  have  a duty  of  $5  or  even 
$6  per  case  of  12-quart  or  24-pint  bottles,  without  duty  on  bottles,  levied 


on  champagne. 

We  trust  you  will  share  our  opinion  and  recommend  the  above  pro- 
posed rate  of  duty  to  the  next  Congress. 

A measure  that  we  believe  would  be  of  very  great  convenience  to  mer- 
chants is  to  allow  importers  to  swear  to  custom-house  entries  before  a 
notary  public  instead  of  compelling  them  to  do  so  before  a deputy  col- 
lector at  the  custom  house. 

Very  r6Sp6Ctfully • 

FEED,  de  BAEY  & CO. 


[John  D.  & M.  Williams,  wines  and  spirits.  ] 

Boston,  Mass.  August  4,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Washington , 1).  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : We  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  favor 
of  27th  July.  The  goods  we  import,  chiefly  fine  wines  and  spirits,  pay 
at  the  present  time  a specific  duty.  This  leads  to  the  importation  of  a 
better  class  of  goods  than  if  an  ad  valorem  duty  was  levied,  and  we  be- 
lieve removes  the  temptation  to  undervaluation  on  such  merchandise. 
The  only  suggestion  we  have  to  make  is  the  removal  of  the  present  duty 
on  bottles  containing  wine,  ale,  and  spirits,  the  articles  themselves 
paying  a high  rate ; and  also  the  restoration  of  the  old  allowance  for 
leakage  and  breakage  of  5 per  cent,  on  all  cased  goods. 

We  remain,  yours,  very  respectfully, 

JOHN  D.  & M.  WILLIAMS. 


[Dulany,  Meyer  & Co.,  cigars , wines,  and  spirits.'] 

Baltimore,  August  31,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , _D.  C.  : 

Sir:  Your  circular  letter  of  July  24  ultimo,  is  duly  received. 

The  goods  which  we  import  and  with  which  we  are  familiar  are  cigars, 
wines,  and  spirits. 

Our  opinion  is  that  a specific  duty  is  by  far  the  most  desirable  for  all 
those  whose  interests  are  dependent  upon  an  honest  and  efficient  ad- 
ministration of  the  tariff  laws. 

On  cigars  the  duty  is  at  present  levied  as  follows  : Twenty -five  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  and  $2.50  per  pound  (and  also  $3  per  1,000  internal- 
revenue  tax). 

This  duty  is  open  to  objection  for  the  following  reasons  : 

(1)  The  ad  valorem  duty  may  be  partly  evaded  by  collusion  with  the 
foreign  shipper  as  per  example : A certain  size  of  a regular  brand  is 
purchased  in  Havana,  say  “Golden  Eagle n regalia  reina  fina,  value 
$75.  The  size  “ Eegalia  Eeina  Fina”  is  simply  stenciled  on  outside  of 
box.  The  purchasing  agent  in  Havana  may  easily  remove  the  stencil- 
ing, or  may  even  arrange  with  the  manufacturer  not  to  have  the  boxes 
stenciled  at  all.  He  may  then  stencil  these  boxes  “ Conchas  Finas,” 


164  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


value  $52,  aud  so  Invoice  them,  and  may,  as  the  cigars  are  similar  in  shape 
and  size,  pass  them  through  custom  house  without  fear  of  detection. 
In  the  case  of  unknown  brands  the  shipper  can  simply  undervalue  bis 
cigars  and  pass  them,  unless  this  undervaluation  be  done  very  clumsily. 

(2)  The  appraiser  here  has  only  the  published  price  list  of  cigars  to 
guide  him  in  determining  values.  If,  therefore,  an  importer  has  by  an 
offer  of  cash  or  by  the  purchase  of  an  unusually  large  lot,  succeeded  in 
getting  a reduction  of  the  regular  price,  the  appraiser  is  still  compelled 
to  exact  duty  according  to  his  regular  price-list,  which  he  is  instructed 
to  consider  the  market  price.  This  we  think  au  injustice  to  the  impor- 
ter, as  the  real  market  price  is  that  at  which  he  purchases,  and  is  brought 
about  by  considerations  other  than  those  which  rule  the  regular  price- 
list. 

(3)  Cigars  are  weighed  here  on  arrival,  and  the  duty  of  $2.50  per 
pound  is  placed  on  them  as  per  actual  weight.  This  weighing  is  in  the 
hands  of  an  appraiser,  or  one  of  his  assistants,  and  the  Government  may 
be  defrauded  by  collusion  of  the  importer  and  the  weigher  with  very 
little  or  no  chance  of  detection. 

We  find,  therefore,  that  the  Government  may  be  defrauded  in  every 
case  by  the  collusion  of  only  two  persons,  either  the  exporter  and  the  im- 
porter, or  the  importer  and  one  customs  official,  without  much  chance  of 
detection  except  through  an  informer,  and  we  do  not  consider  any  duty 
can  be  justly  and  honestly  collected  which  offers  such  facilities  for  eva- 
sion. We  advocate  a specific  duty,  because  it  is  simple  and  can  be  de- 
termined by  any  honest  official  with  ordinary  intelligence,  aud  a reasona- 
ble amount  of  experience,  and  also  because  the  same  facilities  for  fraud 
do  not  exist  as  in  ad  valorem  duties.  A fraud  upon  a specific  duty  would 
require  collusion  of  at  least  three  parties,  the  exporter,  the  customs 
official,  aud  the  importer,  and  then  only  when  it  could  be  ascertained 
before  shipment  of  goods  that  a certain  official,  and  no  other,  would 
examine  them  upon  entry. 

In  our  opinion  a duty  of  $40  per  1,000  on  all  cigars  would  overcome 
the  objections  to  the  present  duty,  and  at  the  same  time  yield  about 
the  same  revenue  with  equal  protection  to  the  domestic  manufacturer. 
This  rate  of  duty  would  somewhat  increase  the  present  cost  of  the  lowest 
qualities  of  cigars  now  imported  and  which  particularly  come  in  compe- 
tition with  domestic  manufacture,  while  the  cost  of  higher  qualities 
would  be  much  reduced,  these,  however,  not  coming  iuto  competition 
with  domestic  goods  to  any  large  extent. 

The  duties  on  wines  and  spirits  are  all  specific,  and  do  not,  in  our 
opinion,  offer  any  facilities  for  evasion.  In  that  respect  we  think  they 
are  perfectly  satisfactory. 

We  would,  however,  call  your  attention  to  an  incongruity  which  should 
not  exist  in  a well  considered  tariff.  When  cigars  are  duty-paid,  the 
Internal  Revenue  Department  also  collects  its  domestic  duty  of  $3  per 
1,000  in  addition  to  the  import  duty.  In  the  case  of  spirits  this  is  not 
so.  The  duty  of  $2  per  gallon  is  paid  to  the  customs,  and  the  Internal 
Revenue  Department  does  not  collect  its  domestic  revenue.  We  think 
that  this  diversity  in  the  tariff  is  an  objection  which  should  be  removed. 

It  is  almost  impossible  to  produce  positive  evidence  of  any  evasion 
which  has  worked  injury  to  us,  and  we  do  not  therefore  consider  it  policy 
to  charge  said  evasion. 

We  are,  very  respectfully, 

DULANY,  MEYER  & CO. 


REVISION  OE  THE  TARIFF. 


165 


[Arnold  Poliak  & Co.,  cigars. \ 

San  Francisco,  August  3, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury  Department , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  fa  vor  of  the  1st  instant,  take  the  liberty 
to  make  following  suggestion  regarding  duties  levied  on  cigars. 

We  advocate  in  place  of  weighing  cigars  to  adopt  a certain  standard 
wreiglit  for  each  size,  no  matter  what  the  name  of  the  factory  or  brand 
may  be. 4 

The  present  mode  is  very  annoying  and  almost  looks  like  discrimina- 
tion, while  we  don’t  consider  it  so,  as  per  example : 

Take  any  invoice  and  compare  the  weight  of  a particular  cigar  of  the 
same  brand  size,  and  you  will  find  they  vary  in  weight. 

Therefore  it  happens  that  often  we  have  to  sell  a certain  cigar  at  cost, 
while  our  competitor,  selling  the  same  goods  at  the  same  price,  on  an 
invoice  which  came  in  probably  the  same  date,  realizes  a profit,  or  vice 
versa. 

Sometimes  we  receive  the  same  identical  cigars  in  the  same  invoice, 
however,  packed  in  two  different  cases.  The  weigher  returns  them  at 
a weight  in  variance  with  each  other. 

In  explanation  of  above  would  say  that  cigars  being  made  by  hand, 
it  is  natural  that  one  workman  presses  more  tobacco  into  the  cigar  than 
another,  or  uses  moister  tobacco;  therefore,  if  the  weigher  gets  hold  ot 
a certain  percentage  of  the  boxes  to  weigh*which  are  heavier  than  the 
others,  he  bases  his  calculation  therefrom  on  the  entire  line  of  that 
particular  cigar  contained  in  that  case,  and  here  wTe  are  left.  Again, 
when  he  gets  hold  of  a lighter  percentage  we  are  in,  just  as  it  may  hap- 
pen. It  is  a lottery. 

As  you  perceive  by  the  foregoing,  there  is  no  undervaluation  in  this 
case.  Still  our  suffering  from  this  apparently  straight  transaction  re- 
mains the  same. 

We  therefore  would  suggest  to  the  Department  calculation  of  weight 
by  measurement  by  inch  and  part  of  an  inch,  as  well  regarding  the 
length  as  to  the  size  around,  and  adopt  a certain  weight  tor  all  cigars 
corresponding  with  that  measurement  or  size. 

As  an  instance  of  our  cause  for  complaint  we  would  mention  the  brand 
Rosa  Blanca  Reina  fina,  which  has  been  returned  on  our  invoice  by  the 
weigher,  weighing  12J  pounds  per  1,000,  and  at  other  times  at  15  pounds 
per  1,000,  which  we  quote  as  the  two  extremes.  Say,  per  example,  this 
cigar,  size  4§  inches  in  length  and  probably  five-eighths  of  an  inch  thick, 
should  be  adopted  to  weigh  13  or  13^  or  any  weight  you  may  think  proper, 
and  do  justice  to  the  importer,  and  adopt  that  weight  on  all  cigars  corre- 
sponding with  this  measurement,  we  would  have  some  chance  to  know 
what  such  goods  can  be  sold  for,  or  rather  be  able  to  base  our  calcula- 
tion on  their  cost  for  the  future  on  all  such  size  goods. 

We  remain,  yours  respectfully, 

ARNOLD  POLLAK  & CO. 

P.  S. — Inclosed  please  find  a few  specimen  invoices  to  compare,  same 
brands  and  sizes,  w hich  will  explain  foregoing.  As  a further  evidence 
of  the  discrepancy  in  weight,  would  draw  your  attention  to  case  No.  2 LI : 
Therein  you  will  notice  item  5,000  Rosa  Blanca  Reina  finas,  1-20  $23, 
boxes  $5,  $28  per  1,000,  weighing  15  pounds  per  1,000;  3,000  Rosa 
Blanca  Conchas  especial,  1-20  $23,  boxes  $5,  $28  per  1,000,  weiging  14 
pounds  12  ounces  per  1,000.  The  latter  are  the  identical  goods  in  size 


166  "REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

and  everything  else,  only  ordered  with  a different  front  mark,  and  still 
they  weighed  4 ounces  per  1,000 less.  Therefore  the  Government  either 
received  on  the  former  lot  $3.32  more  than  they  were  entitled  to,  or  they 
got  on  the  latter  lot  of  3,000,  12  ounces  at  $2.50  per  pound,  $1.86  less 
than  they  should  have  received. 


[Sutter  Bros.,  tobacco .] 

Chicago,  July  31,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir  : We  have  received  your  circular,  requesting  our  opinion  as  to  the 
advisability  of  adopting  specific  duties  generally  on  imports. 

In  response  to  same  will  say,  we  are  heavy  importers  of  Havana  and 
Sumatra  tobacco  and  large  buyers  of  domestic  tobacco. 

As  imported  tobacco  pays  a specific  duty,  we  do  not  see  that  our  sug- 
gestions are  particularly  called  for,  but  we  take  this  opportunity  to  ex- 
press to  you  our  opinion  as  to  the  tariff  now  levied  on  Sumatra  tobacco. 

There  is  but  little  doubt  but  that  the  present  law  has  opened  a wide 
field  for  fraud  on  importations  of  Sumatra  tobacco. 

We  base  this  statement  on  the  fact  that  Chicago  importers  have  not 
been  able  to  import  Sumatra  tobacco  direct,  owing  to  the  fact  that  New 
York  importers  have,  sinc6  the  tariff  act  of  March,  1883,  took  effect,  sold 
Sumatra  in  this  market  for  a less  price  than  Chicago  importers  could  lay 
it  down  here  direct  from  Holland. 

This  being  the  case,  there  can  be  but  one  inference  as  to  the  mauner 
in  which  it  is  done,  and  that  is  that  fraud  has  been  carried  on  to  a great 
extent  in  connection  with  the  importations  of  this  class  of  tobacco  made 
at  New  York. 

We  would,  therefore,  suggest  that  a uniform  duty  be  placed  on  leaf- 
tobacco,  whether  coming  from  Havana  or  Sumatra. 

As  buyers  of  tobacco,  we  would  prefer  of  course  that  the  rate  be  not 
less  than  75  cents  per  pound  on  Sumatra  tobacco,  regardless  of  size,  fine- 
ness, or  weight ; but  the  rate  is  of  but  little  importance  as  long  as  it  is 
arranged  so  that  one  importer  cannot  take  advantage  of  another. 

Very  respectfully, 

SUTTER  BROS. 


[United  American  Clay  Tobacco-Pipe  Manufacturers’  Association.] 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y .,  November  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning  : 

Sir:  Having  written  for  and  obtaiued  a circular  from  your  Depart- 
ment bearing  on  the  question  of  the  advantages  to  be  derived  by 
American  manufacturers  by  the  adoption  of  specific  duties  on  manufact- 
ured goods  now  admitted  to  this  country  on  the  ad  valorem  basis,  we, 
the  United  Clay  Tobacco-Pipe  Manufacturers  of  the  United  States, 
strongly  concur  in  the  intimation  of  the  first  paragraph  of  said  circular, 
namely,  “ that  the  tariff  laws  are  largely  evaded  by  undervaluation 
wherever  the  duties  are  levied  ad  valorem.” 

In  our  particular  department  of  trade  we  have  suffered  from  this  cause 
to  an  extent  that  has  virtually  paralyzed  our  iudustry,  and  driven 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


167 


hundreds  of  our  skilled  mechanics  to  various  other  pursuits  to  gain  a 
livelihood.  By  the  adoption  of  specific  duties,  as  your  circular  sug- 
gests, a new  hope  is  held  out  to  us,  and  we  earnestly  pray  your  efforts 
in  this  direction  will  be  crowned  with  success,  for  the  following  very 
tangible  reasons  : 

By  the  present  system  of  ad  valorem  duties  the  valuation  of  manu- 
factured clay  pipes  bought  in  Europe  can  be  reduced  so  low,  through 
the  medium  of  percentages  offered  to  importers,  that  the  duty  is  reduced 
to  a very  nominal  figure,  as  they  are  thereby  sent  to  this  country  as 
inferior  goods,  thereby  stocking  this  market  with  foreign  made  pipes, 
to  the  detriment  of  the  home  production.  By  this  we  mean  that  Eu- 
ropean manufacturers  offer  startling  reductions  to  American  importers 
in  the  shape  of  discounts  or  percentages  which  do  not  exist  in  fact, 
but  are  really  a subterfuge  to  evade  the  law — a private  understanding 
being  agreed  upon  between  the  importer  and  the  foreign  manufacturer 
as  to  the  actual  price  to  be  paid,  the  ostensible  percentage  being  for 
the  simple  purpose  of  deceiving  the  custom-house,  thus  reducing  the 
import  duty  to  the  lowest  possible  minnimum,  and  forcing  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturer  to  compete  with  the  cheap  labor  and  other  advan- 
tages enjoyed  by  his  European  competitor. 

While  we  are  not  in  a position  to  bring  direct  evidence  on  this  ques- 
tion of  false  percentages,  still  our  knowledge  of  the  actual  cost  of  pro- 
duction both  in  Europe  and  the  United  States,  gleaned  from  personal 
experience  in  both  countries,  leads  us  to  believe  that  our  accusations 
must  be  true,  as  by  no  other  means  could  foreign  clay-pipe  manufactu- 
rers offer  the  great  inducements  they  do  to  American  importers. 

Our  goods  are  what  is  known  as  common  clay  pipes,  the  common  be- 
ing most  affected  by  this  wrong  system  of  ad  valorem  duty.  In  the 
trade  the  common  clay  pipe  is  generally  known  as  “T.  D.”  pipes,  and 
the  better  quality  as  “ Home  Buie”  or  “Short  Dublins.”  The  cost  of 
production  of  the  -“  T.  D.”  pipe  in  Scotland  (including  packing  and  box- 
ing) is  one  shilling  and  one  half  pence  per  gross,  and  that  of  “Home 
Buie”  or  “Short  Dublins”  (also  including  packing  and  boxing)  is  one 
shilling  five  and  one  eighth  pence  per  gross,  while  in  this  country  the 
actual  cost  of  production  of  the  “T.  D.'s”  (always  including  packing 
and  boxing)  is  46J  cents  per  gross,  and  the  “Home  Buie”  or  “Short 
Dublins”  56J  cents  per  gross. 

You  will  see  by  these  figures  that  the  actual  cost  of  production  in 
this  country  is  nearly  double  that  of  England,  and  the  great  disadvan- 
tages under  which  we  labor  if  not  properly  protected.  The  following 
are  the  exact  figures  of  every  minute  expense  entering  into  the  manu- 
facture of  both  descriptions  of  clay  pipes  made  in  the  United  States, 
and  you  will  readily  see  how  fine  we  are  compelled  to  shave  figures : 

“T.  D.’s,”  per  gross  : 

Making 

Finishing 

Clay 

Fuel 

Potting 

Labor  

Refit 

Boxes 

Packing 


Cents. 
- 20* 

- 5* 

• - 3* 

..  3 

- n 

..  4 

. 2 
•-  4* 
..  2 


Total 


46£ 


168  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 
“ Home  Rule  ” or  “ Short  Dublins,”  per  gross : 


Mating.. 

Finishing 

Clay 

Fuel 

Potting . . 

Labor  

Rent 

Boxes  

Packing  . 


Cents. 
..  26| 
■-  7* 

■-  4f 
..  Sf 

■ ■ n 

4 1 
- 2i 
..  5 

.-  2 


Total 


56| 


The  material  in  the  above  pipes  is  obtained  from  Woodbridge,  N.  J., 
and  costs  at  the  pit  $3  per  ton,  and  for  freight  and  carting  $2 
extra,  making  the  raw  material  cost  $5  per  ton  delivered  at  our 
factories. 

We  have  cited  only  two  brands  of  pipes,  but  the  general  argument  is 
true  of  all  others,  and  there  are  several  on  the  market,  the  two  men- 
tioned being  the  more  prominent. 

In  referring  to  foreign-made  goods,  reference  is  made  only  to  those 
coming  from  England  or  Scotland,  as  we  are  not  in  a position  to  quote 
prices  of  pipes  made  in  Germany,  but  they  are  produced  much  less  than 
the  English  article. 

As  a result  of  being  forced  to  compete  so  closely  with  foreign-made 
pipes  it  has  been  found  impossible  to  establish  a manufactory  of  any 
magnitude  in  this  country,  those  who  have  attempted  it  having  failed 
with  great  financial  loss,  notably  Mr.  McElroy,  of  Philadelphia,  who 
lost  $30,000  in  the  business ; B.  J.  Shipman,  of  Woodbridge,  N.  J.,  who 
lost  $10,000  in  his  factory,  and  Toddle  & Johnson,  pipe  dealers  of  Bal- 
timore, who  were  compelled  to  give  up  the  venture,  and  many  others. 

When  it  is  understood,  further,  that  the  average  wages  earned  by 
practical  pipe-makers  will  not  exceed  $7  per  week  during  the  entire 
year,  working  hard  at  the  bench  from  ten  to  twelve  hours  per  day,  it 
will  readily  be  seen  that  the  business  is  sadly  in  need  of  all  the  protec- 
tion the  General  Government  can  give  it. 

By  the  adoption  of  a specific  duty  on  foreign  clay  pipes,  and  making 
that  duty  not  less  than  25  cents  per  gross,  we  will,  in  some  degree, 
be  placed  on  an  equal  footing  with  foreign  manufacturers,  and  be  in  a 
position  to  properly  conduct  our  business  on  something  like  a living 
basis. 

During  the  period  that  a premium  was  held  on  gold,  that  fact  assisted 
us  to  a greater  or  less  extent,  but  since  this  was  removed  our  business 
has  continued  to  degenerate,  and  must  continue  to  do  so  unless  Congress 
comes  to  our  relief  and  imposes  a specific  duty. 

Trusting  we  have  not  intruded  too  long  on  the  valuable  time  of  your 
department,  we  remain, 

Sir,  most  respectfully,  yours, 


WM.  MASTERS, 

Secretary. 


[Howe  & French  isinglass.  ] 

Boston,  November  18,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Sir  : Your  circular  of  July  18th  at  hand,  calling  for  our  views  of  the 
feasibility  of  simplifying  tariff  and  making  the  duty  specific,  as  far  as 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


169 


applicable  to  imported  articles,  such  as  are  produced  in  the  United 
States,  in  which  we  are  interested,  or  with  which  we  are  familiar,  with  as 
full  information  on  the  subject  as  we  may  be  pleased  to  submit. 

Your  circular  was  sent  to  other  manufacturers,  and  but  recently  re- 
turned, which  accounts  for  delay  in  replying. 

We  find  a natural  reluctance  on  the  part  of  some  of  our  associates 
and  competitors  to  give  us  such  full  information  of  their  business  as 
might  be  desired.  Therefore  our  statements  must  be  of  a more  general 
character  than  otherwise. 

We  are  the  largest  of  the  few  manufacturers  of  ribbon  isinglass  in 
this  country,  and  doubtless  the  largest  in  the  world. 

This  industry  is  comparatively  a small  one,  and  is  confined  in  this 
country  to  seven  firms  or  corporations. 

The  joint  capital  employed  is  estimated  at  near  one  million  dollars. 
The  raw  material  used  here,  i.  e.,  the  fish-bladders,  is  mainly  or  largely 
procured  on  this  side  of  the  water,  being  one  of  the  products  of  the 
fishing  interests,  and  purchased  all  along  the  line  of  sea-coast,  east- 
erly from  this  point.  In  case  of  a lack  or  supply  of  raw  material  pro- 
cured (as  any  season’s  catch  may  be  larger  or  smaller)  resort  is  then 
had  to  foreign  markets,  of  which  London  is  the  largest,  that  being  the 
principal  depot  for  many  varieties  of  fish-bladders  of  various  costs. 

This  industry  is  a peculiar  one,  and  can  only  be  prosecuted  to  advan- 
tage during  the  colder  months  of  the  yea  r,  this  season  usually  beginning, 
say,  December  1 , and  ending  somewhere  near  April  1,  according  to  whether 
the  spring  is  early  or  late.  The  larger  part  of  the  factories  are  located 
near  the  homes  of  the  fishermen,  and  the  employes  are  largely  of  that  class, 
being  men,  women,  and  children,  thus  giving  them  pleasant  and  profit- 
able employment  when  the  demand  for  labor  is  usually  quite  light  and 
when  the  fishermen  cannot  follow  their  regular  calling.  This  will  illus- 
trate the  advantage  of  this  peculiar  business  to  a worthy,  hard-working- 
class  of  citizens. 

The  machinery  is  made  here,  and  is  limited  in  amount  and  simple  in 
construction. 

Question  1 : It  is  known  as  American  ribbon  isinglass. 

Question  2 : As  the  article  is  somewhat  peculiar,  the  amount  produced 
each  year,  as  well  as  the  finish,  depends  somewhat  upon  whether  the 
season  is  cold  and  dry  or  soft  and  moist.  The  best  weather  is  when  the 
thermometer  is  considerably  below  freezing  point,  with  a clear,  dry 
wind — i.  e.,  westerly  or  northwesterly. 

The  cost  per  pound,  being  influenced  somewhat  by  a favorable  season 
or  the  reverse,  would  be  about  25  cents  per  pound.  The  grade  of  stock 
used  also  affects  the  cost  of  manufacturing,  meaning  some  stock,  like 
the  best  American  fish-bladder,  runs  more  rapidly  and  readily  than 
some  substitutes,  such  as  certain  kinds  of  foreign  fish-bladders. 

Then  add  loss  by  waste  and  shrinkage,  which  may  average,  say,  12 J 
per  cent.,  and  sometimes  run  as  high  as  20  per  cent.,  this  depending 
somewhat  on  the  skill  or  judgment  of  the  operator. 

Cost  of  best  raw  domestic  material  from  60  cents  to  $1  per  pound. 

In  some  years  of  scarcity  and  unnecessary  competition  as  high  as 
$1.50  has  been  paid. 

This  being  made  during  the  winter  months,  when  labor  is  plentiful 
and  pay  is  moderate,  for  men  from  $6  to  $10  weekly  is  paid,  according 
to  their  skill,  as  some  of  the  work  requires  considerable  muscular  power 
and  endurance,  as  well  as  intelligence.  For  women,  say,  $6  weekly, 
and  for  boys  and  girls  (for  lighter  work),  from  $4  to  $6  a week.  An  ex- 
pense account,  which  includes  the  various  items  of  expense,  rent,  power, 


170  RETORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


labor,  light,  fuel,  freight,  stationery,  city  and  State  taxes,  insurance, 
&c.,  is  kept.  Divide  this  account  by  the  number  of  pounds  produced 
gives  the  cost  of  each  season.  Interest  is  or  should  be  charged  on  cap- 
ital employed  at  the  rate  of  6 per  cent,  per  annum. 

Raw  material  is  purchased  from  the  month  of  June  up  to  December, 
then  manufactured  during  the  next  four  months,  and  sold  as  wanted 
during  the  following  year,  the  demand  being  the  greatest  during  the 
summer  months.  As  each  manufacturer  must  provide  himself  with 
stock  ahead  of  his  requirements,  they  may  practically  carry  their  stock 
one  or  two  years  before  they  are  in  receipt  of  the  funds  first  paid  out. 

Our  factory  has  a good  water  as  well  as  steam  power,  steam  being 
necessary  for  drying  the  isinglass. 

As  this  machinery  is  special,  and  only  adapted  to  this  work,  it  is-of 
no  value  except  as  old  iron,  outside  of  this  peculiar  business. 

The  same  would  apply  to  the  buildings,  to  a greater  or  less  degree, 
which  if  not  required  for  this  business  would  be  sold  for  whatever  they 
would  bring.  Therefore,  a prudent  manufacturer,  realizing  such  natural 
contingencies,  would  charge  off  each  year  a certain  per  cent,  of  liis 
profits  to  depreciation  account.  This  annual  depreciation  should  prop- 
erly be  considered  as  part  of  the  cost  of  making  the  isinglass,  so  that 
while  one  manufacturer  would  consider  that  25  cents  per  pound  covered 
the  cost,  another,  figuring  more  comprehensively,  would  place  the  cost 
as  high  as  30  cents  per  pound. 

Ribbon  isinglass  is  now  manufactured  in  Germany,  from  foreign  fish- 
bladders,  procured  in  London  market  mainly,  and  on  American  ma- 
chinery, their  process  being,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  business,  iden- 
tical with  our  own. 

An  ad  valorem  duty  was  imposed  on  this  imported  product  by  an  act 
of  Congress,  March,  1883,  going  into  effect  the  July  following. 

This  duty  is  25  per  cent.  Previous  to  this  duty  being  imposed  this 
foreign  ribbon  isinglass  had  been  invoiced  and  entered  at  a value  of  80 
cents  per  pound.  To  save  part  of  this  duty  the  first  import,  after  July 
1,  came  valued  at  42  cents  only,  but  the  next  and,  for  a while,  all  sub- 
sequent invoices,  were  sworn  to  at  48  cents  per  pound,  the  usual  form 
of  custom-house  oath  beiug  subscribed  to  in  either  case,  whether  free  or 
dutiable,  that  the  invoiced  value  was  the  true  value.  Every  attempt  in 
collecting'  the  honest  duties  by  the  Government  has  been  met  by  all 
sorts  of  evasive  plans  and  arguments. 

The  full  benefits  to  be  derived  by  the  Government  or  the  American  • 
manufacturers  would  seem  to  be  neutralized  by  the  establishment  of  a 
low  value  abroad,  small  sales  being  made  at  a low  price  in  order  to 
carry  out  the  importers’  plans. 

We  therefore  recommend,  even  if  there  is  more  than  one  value  of 
isinglass  manufactured  abroad,  that  owing  to  the  many  and  manifold 
methods  pursued  by  foreign  manufacturers  in  evading  the  duties  ou  the 
ad  valorem  basis,  that  the  only  safety  to  the  Government  and  protection 
to  the  manufacturer  would  be  to  make  the  duty  specific.  This  duty, 
we  suggest,  should  be  at  least  30  cents  per  pound  specific  on  all  manu- 
factured isinglass,  the  foreign  crude  isinglass,  or  “fish  bladder,”  as  it 
is  termed,  which  is  imported  and  used  in  making  the  manufactured  pro- 
duct, to  be  free,  as  is  now  the  case.  In  conclusion  we  would  argue  as 
follows: 

If  we  were  foreign  manufacturers,  connected  with  any  large  manu- 
facturing interest  abroad,  and  cared  nothing  whatsoever  what  the  ef- 
fect would  be  of  our  actions  on  the  American  public,  we  would  use  our 
influence  and  our  money  unstintingly  in  every  way  possible,  by  paid 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


171 


agents,  by  subsidizing  the  press,  and  in  other  ways,  in  order  to  induce 
the  American  people  to  favor  the  enaction  of  a protective  tariff,  having 
the  duties  ad  valorem,  and  placing  these  as  high  as  could  be  done  pos- 
sibly. Then  we  would  use  our  influence  as  foreign  manufacturers  to 
get  a high  duty  on  the  raw  material.  We  would  also,  as  foreign  manu- 
facturers, do  all  we  could  to  start  the  American  factories  in  the  same 
interest  on  this  side. 

When  our  plans  were  all  perfected  we  would  sell  a large  line  of  goods 
to  several  respectable  American'importing  houses,  and  at  a low  figure 
and  at  a large  loss,  if  necessary.  Then,  having  by  such  sales  estab- 
lished a low  value  to  invoice  our  goods  at,  subsequently  we  would  con- 
sign them  to  our  agents  here  at  the  prices  we  had  sold  at. 

Having  in  this  illegitimate  manner  established  the  principle  of  a low 
valuation,  we  believe  we  could  make  more  money  by  these  methods 
than  perhaps  even  on  a free-trade  basis.  The  result  would  be  the 
American  manufacturers,  handicapped  on  one  hand  by  a duty  on  raw 
material,  higher  labor,  &c.,  would  soon  abandon  the  business,  so  that 
their  failures  would  deter  all  others  for  a while  from  again  embarking 
in  the  business,  even  under  more  favorable  circumstances. 

We  would  thus  illustrate  to  all  parties  the  absurdity  of  ad  valorem 
duties,  and  why  a protective  tariff  fails  to  protect,  and  which  to  day  is 
in  many  ways  fraudulently  turned  in  favor  of  foreign  importers,  so  that 
in  many  directions  the  protective  tariff  is  made  non  protective,  and  is 
a disadvantage  to  the  American  public  rather  than  an  advantage,  as 
would  be  the  case  were  it  carried  out  fairly  and  aS  originally  intended. 

Therefore,  as  ad  valorem  duties  are  so  largely  a failure,  specific  duties 
would  seem  an  absolute  necessity  in  many  lines  of  manufactured  goods. 


[The  Manufacturing  Chemists’  Association  of  the  United  States,  Drugs  and  chemicals .] 

Philadelphia,  November  11,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  The  Manufacturing  Chemists’  Association  of  the  United  States 
begs  leave  to  reply  to  your  letter  of  July  18  last,  and  to  say  that  a copy 
of  your  circular  letter  was  sent  to  each  member,  requesting  an  answer 
as  full  as  possible,  so  that  the  secretary  might  make  a condensed  state- 
ment to  you. 

This  association,  embracing  in  its  membership  the  leading  chemical 
firms  in  the  United  States,  would  also  state  that  it  has  always  been 
glad  to  furnish  to  the  Government  such  information  as  it  was  possible 
for  it  to  give. 

In  speaking  of  drugs  and  chemicals  we  should  consider  the  former  to 
be  crude  substances — say  barks,  roots,  herbs,  seeds,  flowers,  gums,  and 
resins — and  chemicals,  any  preparations  advancing  the  condition  of 
these,  as  well  as  all  the  organic  and  inorganic  salts  and  acids.  But  it 
should  be  remembered  that  the  material  of  one  manufacturer  is  fre- 
quently the  finished  product  of  another. 

SPECIFIC  DUTIES. 

By  the  revision  of  the  law  in  1883  the  tariff  was  simplified  and  specific 
rates  substituted  for  ad  valorem  as  far  as  was  prudent.  Previous  to 
that  time  drugs  and  chemicals  (now  Schedule  A)  were  chiefly  included 


172  REPORT  OP  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


among  sundries.  The  schedule  was  then  carefully  adjusted,  nearly 
in  accordance  with  the  views  and  recommendations  of  the  Tariff  Com- 
mission, and  wherever  specific  duties  were  considered  admissible,  they 
were  adopted. 

Ad  valorem  duties  are  necessary  where  a difference  of  quality  exists, 
or  in  some  instances  where  articles  fluctuate  in  value  to  any  marked 
degree. 

Double  or  compound  duties  are  applicable  to  articles  the  price  of 
whose  component  parts  is  frequently  changing,  and  when  the  value  of 
the  article  changes  on  account  of  the  difference  in  the  quantities  of  its 
component  parts. 

The  Government  would  eventually  suffer  greater  loss  from  evasion 
were  the  ad  valorem  and  compound  duties  abolished  aud  specific  rates 
applied  in  every  case. 

The  new  law  provides  for  a more  accurate  system  of  classification  and 
enumeration  than  that  which  has  hitherto  prevailed,  many  of  the  ad' 
valorem  having  been  changed  to  specific  duties. 

In  the  chemical  schedule  (A)  more  depends  on  the  skill  of  the  exam- 
iner than  in  any  of  the  other  schedules,  as  often  he  has  neither  form, 
physical  appearance,  nor  texture  to  guide  him;  and,  notwithstanding 
the  descriptive  clauses  and  provisions  against  evasion,  unless  he  is  thor- 
oughly trained,  it  will  be  impossible  to  prevent  loss  to  the  revenue.  It 
is,  therefore,  incumbent  on  the  Treasury  Department  to  provide  every 
customs  house  in  the  country  with  a skilled  chemist  and  physicist  of 
acknowledged  ability,  who  shall  have  passed  examination  at  some  lead- 
ing college  or  institution  of  learning,  and  whose  character  shall  be 
thoroughly  vouched  for.  These  men  become  the  guardians  of  the  rights 
of  the  Government,  and  of  importing  and  manufacturing  interests,  and 
should  be  worthy  of  their  trusts. 

At  present  young  men  find  no  encouragement  in  Government  service, 
and  the  idea  is  never  entertained,  in  the  preparation  for  a life’s  work, 
of  including  any  special  training  for  this  purpose. 

With  regard  to  the  questions  involved  in  your  inquiries  Nos.  1 to  5, 
we  refer  you  to  the  Deport  of  the  Tenth  Census.  We  think  we  cannot 
do  better  than  to  introduce  for  your  consideration  the  “ letter  of  trans- 
mittal ” and  a part  of  the  u general  discussion  ” contained  in  that  report : 

* 

LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 

The  Superintendent  of  Census  : 

Sir:  I have  the  honor  to  submit  herewith  the  final  report  oh  the  manufacture  of 
chemical  products  in  the  United  States.  As  this  is  the  first  official  report  on  this 
branch  of  industry,  its  preparation  has  been  attended  with  extraordinary  difficulty, 
owing  to  the  lack  of  full  and  reliable  information,  particularly  in  matters  of  histori- 
cal interest. 

Manufacturing  chemistry  is  so  intimately  associated  with  other  branches  of  manu- 
facture that  it  becomes  difficult  to  locate  the  dividing  line  between  them.  In  this  re- 
port the  plan  pursued  is,  so  far  as  practicable,  that  adopted  by  French  statisticians. 
No  attempt  has  been  made  to  describe  the  various  processes  employed  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  medical  products,  as  these  differ  so  widely  that  the  methods  employed  are  al- 
most innumerable.  In  the  manufacture  of  a single  article  the  processes  employed  by 
various  makers  are  often  essentially  different.  Moreover,  such  descriptions  do  not 
properly  belong  to  a statistical  report,  but  can  be  found  in  works  on  technical  chem- 
istry, and  in  the  records  of  the  Patent  Office. 

For  convenience  of  reference  the  report  is  divided  iuto  two  parts: 

Part  I treats  of  the  general  industry,  with  special  mention  of  certain  important 
products,  and  is  accompanied  by  the  following  tables : 

Table  I. — Exhibiting  by  States  the  total  production  of  chemical  products  in  the 
United  States. 

Table  II. — Exhibiting  the  statistics  of  the  chemical  industry  in  several  of  the  prin- 
cipal cities.  These  points  are  centers  of  manufacture,  aud,  to  secure  uniformity  in 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  173 

compilation,  statistics  are  given  of  the  total  manufacture  within  a radius  of  thirty 
miles. 

Part  II  treats  of  the  manufacture  of  common  salt,  and  is  accompanied,  by  the  fol- 
lowing tables: 

Table  I. — Gives  the  general  statistics  of  salt  production  in  the  United  States  for  the 
census  year  1880. 

Table  II. — Showing  the  relative  production  of  the  various  salt-producing  States, 
according  to  the  censuses  of  1860,  1870,  and  1880,  respectively. 

Table  III. — Giving  analyses  of  the  brines  and  rock  salts  of  the  United  States, 
which  are  fairly  typical  of  their  composition  in  the  various  sections. 

Table  IV. — Giving  analyses  of  various  brands  and  qualities  of  salt  from  the  dif- 
ferent sections. 

Many  small  tables  are  introduced  in  both  parts  of  the  report  when  special  mention 
is  made  of  a.  product  or  the  locality  from  which  it  is  derived ; but  these  are  mainly 
completed  from  the  tables  enumerated  above. 

[General  Discussion.] 

Part  1. — Chemical  Production. 

Although  complete  statistics  of  the  chemical  industry  are  given  in  the  accompany- 
ing tables,  it  is  desirable  to  give  some  of  the  more  important  features  in  a condensed 
form.  No  statistics  are  available  to  exhibit  the  growth  of  this  industry,  while  its 
diversified  character  renders  it  impossible  to  consider  each  article  separately,  and 
therefore  only  a few  chemical  products  have  been  selected  for  special  mention. 

During  census  year  1,349  establishments  were  in  operation,  with  aggregates  of  in- 
vestment, cost,  and  production,  as  follows : 


Number  of  establishments 1, 349 

Value  of  buildings $19, 019, 139 

Value  of  machinery $15, 656, 476 

Total  capital $85, 394, 211 

Number  of  men  employed ‘26, 776 

Number  of  women  employed 1, 493 

Number  of  children  employed 1, 251 

Total  amount  paid  in  wages $11, 840,  704 

Tons  of  anthracite  coal  used  273, 161 

Value  of  anthracite  coal  used $968, 432 

Tons  of  bituminous  coal  used 319,  398 

Value  of  bituminous  coal  used $913,  885 

Total  value  of  all  materials $77, 471, 836 

Total  value  of  products $117, 377, 324 


By  this  it  will  be  seen  that  41  per  cent,  of  the  total  capital  is  invested  in  plant,  ex 
elusive  of  land.  The  average  yearly  weekly  wages  paid  is  $401.11,  allowing  the  same 
wages  to  men,  women,  and  children;  if,  in  determining  the  average  yearly  wages, 
those  of  women  and  children  are  considered  as  half  those  of  men,  the  average  of  men’s 
wages  will  be  $420.66.  This  makes  no  allowance  for  establishments  in  operation  dur- 
ing only  a portion  of  the  year.  Inasmuch  as  a few  discontinued  work  after  the  year 
began,  while  many  more  commenced  operations  during  the  last  half  of  it,  the  figures 
given  represent  a lower  average  of  wages  than  was  actually  the  case.  Only  hands 
employed  in  manufacture  are  included  in  these  statements;  clerks,  book-keepers,  su- 
perintendents, agents,  and  carters  being  omitted. 

Among  the  materials  used  fuel  is  an  important  item  for  chemical  establishments, 
and,  other  things  being  equal,  cheap  coal  will  invariably  draw  the  manufacturing 
chemist  to  its  neighborhood ; 592,559  tons  of  coal,  valued  at  $1,882,317,  were  con- 
sumed in  this  branch  of  industry  during  the  year,  with  undetermined  quantities  of 
wood,  coke,  and  charcoal. 

Of  the  value  of  the  product  of  this  industry  10.08  per  cent,  was  paid  out  in  wages 
and  66  per  cent,  for  materials,  leaving  23.92  per  cent,  to  meet  the  cost  of  freights,  in- 
terest on  capital,  rent,  superintendence,  and  other  general  expenses. 

The  diversified  character  of  the  industry  allows  the  employment  of  capital  in  lai  ge 
or  in  small  amounts,  many  operations,  particularly  in  the  manufacture  of  potash,  be- 
ing on  so  small  a scale  as  to  be  omitted  in  the  enumeration,  since  the  law  only  ad- 
mits the  classification  of  establishments  that  produce  in  excess  of  $500  per  annum. 
The  amount  of  capital  employed  varies  from  merely  nominal  sums  in  many  establish- 
ments to  nearly  $4,000,000  in  others,  with  production  in  proportion  to  the  capital. 


174 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


From  the  statistics  of  Table  I the  following  figures  may  be  deduced  as  the  average 
for  each  establishmeut : 


Value  of  buildiugs 

Value  of  machinery 

Total  capital 

Number  of  hands  employed 

Total  amount  paid  iu  wages 

202  tons  of  anthracite  coal  used 
237  tons  of  bituminous  coal  used 

Total  value  of  materials 

Total  value  of  product 


$14, 098 
$11,606 
$63, 302 
22 
$8,777 
$718 
$677 
$57, 429 
$87,  Oil 


The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  establishments  and  total  value  of  pro- 
duction in  twelve  of  the  leading  States,  in  the  order  of  production,  with  the  per- 
centages of  each,  compared  with  the  total  figures  of  the  United  States,  only  those 
States  being  given  separately  that  make  over  1 per  cent,  of  the  total  production  of 
the  United  States : 


States. 

Establishments. 

Product. 

Number. 

Percent- 

ages. 

Total  value. 

Percent- 

ages. 

Average 
percentage 
for  each 
establish- 
ment. 

New  York 

217 

16.  08 

$29,  805,  614 

25.  39 

0. 117 

Pennsylvania 

181 

13.  42 

20,  884,  991 

17.79 

0.  098 

Massachusetts 

179 

13.  27 

10,  604,  662 

9.04 

0.  050 

New  Jersey 

62 

4.  60 

9,  499,  577 

8.  09 

0. 130 

Ohio 

92 

6.82 

7,  678,  374 

6.54 

0. 071 

Ulinois 

52 

3.  85 

7,  681,325 

6.54  ! 

0. 126 

Maryland 

60 

4.45 

7,  243, 122 

6.17 

0. 103 

Missouri 

39 

2.  89 

5,  827,  498 

4.97 

0.127 

California  

42 

3.11 

3, 179,  700 

2.  71 

0.  065 

South  Carolina 

29 

2.15 

2,  693,  053 

2.30  j 

0.  079 

Connecticut 

41 

3.  04 

2,419,743 

2.06  j 

0. 050 

Rhode  Island  

41 

3.  04 

1,968,  041 

1.68  1 

0.  041 

Twenty-six  other  States 

314 

23.  28 

7,  891,  624 

6.72 

0.021 

It  will  be  seen  that  '«he  State  of  New  York  gives  25.39  per  cent,  of  the  entire  pro- 
duction, followed  by  Pennsylvania  with  17.79  per  cent.  The  last  column,  containing 
the  average  percentage  for  each  establishmeut  iu  the  various  States,  shows  that  New 
Jersey  has  the  largest  average  production  in  the  States  mentioned,  followed  by  Mis- 
souri, while  the  average  percentages  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  are  less. 

Since  tlie  date  of  the  making  of  this  report  (a  period  of  five  years) 
it  is  believed  that  the  chemical  industry  grew  during  the  prosperous 
years  of  1880,  ’81,  and  ’82  to  the  extent  of  15  per  cent.,  but  that  it  has 
not  retaiued  this  increased  proportion  during  the  succeeding  years  of 
depression. 

Of  the  value  of  the  entries  of  drugs  and  chemicals  for  the  fiscal  year 
ended  June  80, 1881,  $25,535,409.02  were  free  of  duty,  and  $13,089,G55.G1 
paid  duty,  amounting  to  $3, 71G, 489.51,  equal  to  28.39  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem, the  duty  collected  being  more  than  equaled  by  that  arisiug  from 
the  agricultural  products,  fruits,  and  nuts,,  which  during  the  same  year 
was  $4,420,536.27;  or,  if  the  whole  amount  of  drugs  and  chemicals  that 
were  imported  is  taken,  then  9.G2  per  cent,  will  represent  the  ad  va- 
lorem rate,  showing  how  large  a free  list  exists  on  these  articles,  28.50 
per  cent,  being  the  average  rate  of  duty  paid  on  the  entire  importation 
of  merchandise  into  the  United  States. 

The  industry  is  now  suffering  from  production  in  excess  of  demand, 
and,  in  common  with  other  branches  of  manufacture,  is  patiently  await- 
ing an  increase  of  population  to  overcome  this  overproduction. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  175 

The  Uuited  States  is  looked  to  by  foreign  nations  as  the  point  from 
which  revival  of  trade  is  first  to  come. 

We  think  they  reason  well,  as  this  country  is  the  only  one  among 
the  great  civilized  nations  where  population  increases  in  any  marked 
degree. 

TARIFF  ADJUSTMENT. 

The  American  system,  as  exemplified  in  the  present  tariff  law,  is  based 
on  a leading  principle — the  protection  of  American  industry. 

A study  of  the  law  will  show  that  it  is,  in  general,  symmetrical  and 
harmonious;  indeed,  one  of  the  most  perfect  in  this  respect  that  has 
ever  been  made  by  any  government.  When  the  harmony  is  broken,  as 
perhaps  it  may  be  in  some  instances,  it  is  due  to  the  straining  of  per- 
sonal or  local  influences,  and  to  the  effect  of  what  is  not  improperly 
termed  “ log  rolling.” 

The  character  of  the  testimony  given  before  the  Tariff  Commission 
in  1882  will  show  that  a great  number  of  the  witnesses  were  earnest  in 
their  views  that  the  material  used  by  them  for  manufacture  should  have 
a lower  rate  of  duty,  or,  possibly,  be  free ; while  their  manufactured 
articles  should  have  higher  rates,  or  remain  undisturbed,  so  that  they 
might  be  able  to  produce  and  sell  at  a profit. 

Let  us  describe  the  method  that  was  adopted  by  the  Tariff  Commission 
to  obtain  information,  and  refer  to  the  result  of  their  deliberations  and 
report,  which  is,  together  with  the  Morrill  tariff  bill  of  1861,  the  basis 
of  the  existing  law. 

The  Commission  commenced  by  inviting  testimony  from  the  various 
industries  of  the  country,  and  during  the  four  months  of  their  delibera- 
tions and  study  developed  a great  mass  of  information.  After  the  com- 
pilation of  this  testimony,  together  with  that  brought  to  them  by  special 
agents  of  the  Treasury  Department,  custom-house  officials,  assistant 
secretaries  of  the  Treasury,  political  economists,  and  experts,  their  re- 
port, as  formulated,  may  be  said  to  be  a condensation  of  information 
such  as  few  governments  possess. 

The  most  interesting  and  instructive  work  that  a student  of  this  sub- 
ject could  undertake  would  be  on  the  report  of  this  Commission,  and 
much  information  that  is  now  sought  by  inquiring  minds  and  by  the 
Government  could  be  obtained  from  this  source. 

Unquestionably,  in  the  construction  of  a law  of  such  vast  proportions 
and  so  far-reaching  in  its  consequences,  the  most  important  point  is  the 
absolute  maintenance  of  the  principle  on  which  it  is  founded. 

While  great  injustice  and  manifest  wrong  may  be  done  to  special  in- 
dustries by  the  abandonment  of  this  principle  in  some  instances,  yet 
these  cases  being  isolated  do  not  affect  the  system  to  any  marked  ex- 
tent, but  should  they  increase  in  number  they  would  cease  to  be  insu- 
lated and  become  a part  of  the  factor  of  disruption  of  the  system  and 
abandonment  of  the  principle. 

A law  based  on  principle  binds  the  system  to  the  principle;  there- 
fore, in  the  course  of  the  study  of  this  subject  it  will  be  found  that  the 
American  system  cannot  be  diluted  by  introducing  with  it  any  other, 
for  the  reason  that  other  systems,  as  the  revenue  tariff,  and  that  for 
revenue  with  incidental  protection,  involve  entirely  different  and  dis- 
tinct principles. 

The  second  system  mentioned  starts  with  the  assumption  that  it  is 
necessary  to  obtain  a given  amount  of  money  for  the  Government  by 
placing  a duty  on  articles  upon  which  it  is  most  easily  collected. 

In  the  last,  all  pure  principles  are  necessarily  abandoned. 


176  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


The  plan  according  to  which  it  is  proposed  to  revise  the  tariff,  viz, 
protection  equivalent  to  the  difference  between  the  rates  of  wages  paid 
in  foreign  countries  and  in  the  United  States,  is,  unequivocally,  in  the 
line  of  protection  to  American  industry. 

The  results  attainable  by  this  scheme  would  be  the  same  as  those  we 
enjoy  at  present,  securing  revenue  and  protection  at  the  same  time. 


CUMULATIVE  EFFECTS  OF  PROTECTION. 


At  this  point  it  is  proper  to  speak  of  the  general  effect  of  a protect- 
ive tariff  on  prices,  and  to  draw  attention  to  the  fact  that  protection 
maintains  comparatively  higher  prices. 

If  we  are  content  to  live  in  a country  having  protective  policy,  we 
must  also  be  satisfied  to  have  comparatively  high  prices.  This  is  due 
to  the  cumulative  system  that  the  tariff  enforces. 

The  prices  of  articles  in  the  United  States  are  mutually  dependent, 
and  it  will  be  found  impossible  to  single  from  among  those  enumerated 
and  provided  for  on  the  duty-paying  schedules  any  manufactured  pro- 
ducts that  should  be  free  of  duty. 

Protection  increases  the  cost  of  manufacture  by  almost  imperceptible 
advances  which  cannot  be  accurately  calculated,  and  which  may  be 
called  u cumulative.” 

This  effect  has  close  relationship  to  the  wage  question,  which,  after 
all,  is  the  real  issue  between  the  people  and  Government. 

TABLE  OF  WAGES  PAID  IN  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA. 


London,  June,  1884 : 

Foremen  in  factories per  week. . $7.  03  to  $9.  37 

Skilled  laborers  in  factories do 5.  86  to  7. 03 

Common  laborers  in  factories do 3. 51  to  4. 69 

Paris,  June,  1884: 

Skilled  laborers  in  glycerine  factories .* per  day . . $0. 869  to  $0.  965 

Rotterdam,  June,  1884  : 

Skilled  laborers  in  chemical  factories do $0. 703 

Common  laborers  in  chemical  factories do 0. 603 


Near  Cologne,  July,  1884  : 

Laborers  (more  or  less  skilled)  in  factories 

Berlin,  July,  1884 : 

Laborers  in  factories . 

Magdeburg,  August,  1884 : 

Laborers  in  country  factories 

Engineers  for  machinery,  country  factories  — 

Sugar  refiners,  filterers,  and  charkiln  men 

Sugar  refiners,  foremen 

Common  laborers  at  odd  jobs 

New  York  City  and  Brooklyn,  1884  aud  1885  : 

Common  laborers  in  factories 

Skilled  laborers  in  factories 


do $0.  595  to  $0. 833 


.do....  $0.476 to $0.7 14 


....de....  $0.  428  to  $0. 476 

0.714 

0.595 

do.... 

0.714 

per  hour.. 

0.  0595 

.per  day..  $1.50 

to  $2.  00 

....do....  2.00 

to  3. CO 

Fifty  miles  from  New  York  City — machine-shop  in  country  village: 

Common  laborers per  day..  $1.25  to  $1.50 

Average  per  day  in  Europe $0.  7765 

Average  per  day  in  America ’ 1.  875 

Glasgow. — The  wages  paid  iu  chemical  works  in  Glasgow,  Scotland, 
to  furnacemen  (large  numbers  of  whom  are  employed  in  chemical 
works  in  the  United  States)  is  $0.25  per  week  of  7 days,  12-liour  shifts  j 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


177 


whilst  here  we  pay  $12  per  week  of  0 days,  12-hour  shifts.  These  men 
may  be  called  “ skilled.”  The  city  of.  Glasgow  has  great  facilities  for 
obtainiug  the  new  bone  and  sinew  of  the  north  of  Ireland,  to  take  the 
place  of  the  broken-down  human  beings  that  are  produced  by  her  sys- 
tem of  working.  Although  Scotland  is  called  a Sabbatarian  country, 
the  cupidity  of  her  chemical  manufacturers  breaks  laws  as  well  as  the 
backs  of  her  working-people,  and  they  are  at  this  time  endeavoring  to 
break  down  important  industries  in  the  United  States  by  making  sales 
of  goods  at  prices  below  their  cost. 

ALCOHOL. 

Alcoholic  preparations  should  have  a compound  duty,  as  the  internal- 
revenue  tax  on  whisky  should  be  countervailed  by  a specific  rate ; while 
the  difference  in  value  of  the  preparations  should  be  covered  by  an  ad 
valorem  rate.  When  formulating  the  new  law  the  effort  was  made  to 
abandon  compound  duties  in  Schedule  A,  for  the  sake  of  (as  stated  at 
the  time)  simplification.  This  attempt  has  resulted  in  high  specific  rates, 
which  are  used  as  examples  of  inordinate  duties  by  uninformed  or  unfair 
expounders  of  the  law. 

This  association  has  advocated  and  still  favors  the  entire  removal  of 
the  tax  from  alcohol,  or  from  such  spirits  as  are  used  in  manufactures, 
whether  employed  as  a component  part  or  as  an  agent. of  production. 
Alcohol  takes  its  place  in  five  hundred  or  more  chemical  and  pharma- 
ceutical preparations. 

FERTILIZERS. 

An  anomaly  exists  in  the  duty  on  agricultural  productions,  which  is 
sometimes  prohibitory,  as  in  the  case  of  wheat,  while  fertilizers  or  chem- 
ical manures  are  free  of  duty. 

DYEWOOD  EXTRACTS. 

These  productions  should  have  a specific  duty  of  1 cent  per  pound  on 
all  extracts  of  logwood,  and  2 cents  per  pound  on  all  red  and  yellow 
dyewood  extracts  The  ad  valorem  duty  of  10  per  cent,  in  this  case 
permits  of  a large  amount  of  evasion. 

INDIGO,  EXTRACTS  OF,  AND  CARMINED. 

The  present  rate  of  duty  is  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  This  should  be 
changed  to  a specific  rate  of  1 cent  per  pound. 

FRANKFORT  BLACK  AND  BERLIN,  CHINESE,  FIG,  AND  WASH  BLUE. 

These  articles,  now  in  schedule  N,  should  be  eliminated  from  it  and 
appear  in  Schedule  A,  under  the  provision  for  “ colors  and  paints.” 

Polishing  poivders. — 20  percent,  ad  valorem  should  remain  in  Sched- 
ule K 

LEAD  ORES. 

These  are  practically  prohibited  by  a duty  of  IJ  cents  per  pound.  In- 
asmuch as  lead  salts  and  many  manufactured  colors  are  produced  from 
metallic  lead,  it  would  be  absolutely  essential  to  alter  this  rate  of  duty 
in  the  event  of  any  change  in  the  rates  on  the  manufactured  goods;  in- 
deed, the  present  very  high  duty  on  lead  ores  is  a glaring  inconsistency. 

S,  Ex.  72 12 


178 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


QUINIA,  CINCHONIDIA,  AND  SALTS  THEREOF. 

The  manufacturers  of  these  articles  have  addressed  you  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  it  only  remains  for  this  association  to  earnestly  recommend 
that  the  duty  may  be  restored,  as  the  producers  of  quiniue  at  present 
exemplify  another  of  the  inconsistencies  of  the  law,  being  singled  from 
among  all  other  manufacturers  to  withstand  the  higher  cost  of  produc- 
tion ruling  in  this  country,  without  corresponding  protection. 

SODA. 

Caustic  soda  is  sold  on  a basis  of  60  per  cent,  caustic.  Within  a few 
years  foreign  manufacturers  have  sent  here  a good  deal  of  caustic  soda 
of  from  70  to  76  per  cent,  strength,  which,  paying  the  same  duty  as  the 
60  per  cent.,  enables  them  to  evade  about  one  fourth  of  the  duty.  There- 
fore the  duty  should  be  levied  on  a basis  of  60  per  cent,  caustic  soda. 

Soda  ash  is  sold  at  48  per  cent,  carbonate,  but  a good  deal  now  im- 
ported is  of  much  greater  purity,  and  the  duty  is  similarly  evaded.  In 
justice  to  the  Government  revenue,  as  well  as  to  the  domestic  manu- 
facturer, the  duties  should  be  levied  on  this  article  on  the  basis  of  48 
per  cent.  soda. 

, The  market  prices  of  heavy  chemicals,  as  caustic  soda,  sal  soda,  bicarb, 
soda,  and  soda  ash,  are  lower  than  ever  before;  so  low,  in  fact,  that  it 
would  be  absolutely  impossible  to  continue  their  manufacture  with  any 
margin  of  profit  if  any  reduction  is  made  in  the  tariff  on  these  articles. 
The  consumer  is  benefited,  and  always  will  be,  by  the  continuance  of 
the  present  great  competition  of  American  with  foreign  manufacturers ; 
but  this  competition  would  cease  with  lower  duties,  and  the  business 
fall  into  the  hands  of  the  foreign  producer. 

SULPHATE  OF  SODA,  OR  SALT  CAKE,  AND  REFINED  GLAUBER  SALTS* 

This  duty  should  be  one-quarter  cent  per  pound,  as  the  articles  are 
identical.  They  are  now  separately  provided  for  and  have  different 
rates  of  duty,  which  causes  ambiguity. 

MURIATE  OF  AMMONIA — SAL-AMMONIAC. 

This  duty  should  be  raised  to  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  from  10  per 
cent.,  as  at  present,  as  manufacturers  find  it  impossible  to  compete  with 
foreign  producers. 


UNENUMERATED  CHEMICALS. 

Manufacturers  of  fine  chemicals  ask  for  an  increase  of  duty  on  these 
articles,  making  the  rate  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  instead  of  25  per  cent., 
which  makes  it  necessary  to  divide  the  residuary  clause  as  follows  : 

All  preparations  known  as  essential  oils,  expressed  oils,  distilled  oils, 
and  rendered  oils,  by  whatever  name  known  and  not  specially  enumer- 
ated or  provided  for  in  this  act,  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

All  alkalies,  alkaloids,  and  all  combinations  of  any  of  the  foregoing, 
and  all  chemical  compounds  and  salts,  by  whatever  name  known,  and 
not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  35  per  ceut.  ad 
valorem. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


179 


THE  WAREHOUSE  ACT. 

The  warehouse  act  compels  withdrawal,  entry,  and  payment  of  duties 
on  goods  warehoused  at  the  expiration  of  one  year.  In  our  judgment 
there  should  be  no  limit ; and  we  believe  that  this  change  of  the  law 
would  make  this  country,  notably  New  York,  a grand  entrepot  for  foreign 
goods,  and  largely  increase  our  foreign  trade.  London  enjoys  this  un- 
limited privilege  and  has  thereby  become  a great  depot  for  the  products 
of  the  whole  world,  so  that  cargoes  of  foreign  merchandise  can  be  made 
up  from  the  London  bonded  warehouses,  often  as  favorably  as  from  the 
producing  countries  direct. 

THE  CUSTOMS  COURT. 

We  respectfully  refer  to  the  proposition  to  create  a customs  court 
which  was  so  ably  argued  before  the  Tariff  Commission,  and  by  it  rec- 
ommended. 

It  is  not  our  province  to  enter  into  the  details  of  a proposition  of  such 
magnitude,  but  we  believe  that  careful  examination  of  the  testimony 
and  report  of  the  Commission  by  competent  persons  would  aid  the  Gov- 
ernment in  its  laudable  course  of  correcting  evasion. 

SECTION  2499. 

The  tariff  law  should  contain  a provision,  immediately  preceding  the 
residuary  clauses,  instructing  the  appraisers  to  pass  all  articles  not 
specially  provided  for  through  the  provisions  of  section  2499,  commonly 
known  as  the  similitude  clause.  This  course  is  rendered  necessary  by 
the  wide  range  of  power  now  held  by  the  appraisers,  which  would  be 
much  curtailed  by  clear  and  positive  direction. 

Section  2499  is  written  as  clearly  as  possible;  nevertheless,  a large 
part  of  the  difficulty  in  assessing  proper  rates  of  duty  arises  from  a mis- 
apprehension on  the  part  of  tlie  customs  officials.  It  is  a duty  the  Depart- 
ment now  owes  to  the  merchants  of  the  country  to  issue  clear  instruc- 
tions with  regard  to  this  section  of  the  law  and  its  relationship  to  the 
residuary  clauses  of  the  schedules. 

We  desire  to  express  to  you  our  gratification  at  the  opportunity  pre- 
sented to  us  to  make  the  foregoing  statements,  and  would  respectfully 
ask  that  you  will  call  on  us  for  any  further  information  that  may  be 
needed. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  S.  HARRISON, 

President  of  the  Manufacturing  Chemists’  Association  of  the  United  States. 

HENRY  BOWER, 

Secretary. 


[L.  S.  White,  salt  and  chemicals .] 

Bilesville,  N.  0.,  July  23,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury , Washington : 

Dear  Sir  : My  attention  has  been  called  to  your  recent  circular 
regarding  undervaluation  of  imports,  &c.,  with  the  request  that  I lay 
before  you  my  “experience,”  which  I will  briefly  do. 


180  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Sorner  years  ago,  about  1867-69,  I was  engaged  in  Baltimore  in  the 
Liverpool  trade,  principally  the  importation  of  salt  and  chemicals. 

From  the  fact  that  New  York  importers  were  underselling  those  of 
Baltimore  in  chemicals,  I made  some  investigations  and  ascertained 
beyond  a doubt  that  bicarbonate  of  soda  was  being  imported  as  car- 
bonate of  soda. 

For  some  reasons  which  I could  not  understand  the  tariff  book,  ar- 
ranged alphabetically,  contained  bicarbonate  of  soda,  carbonate  of  soda, 
and  sal  soda,  and  I presume  it  is  so  now.  The  duty  on  bicarbonate  of 
soda  is  or  was  1?J  cents  per  pound,  on  sal  soda  £ cent  per  pound.  There 
is,  I believe,  no  such  article  as  carbonate  of  soda,  except  as  referring  to 
sal  soda,  by  which  name  it  is  sometimes  improperly  called.  The  tariff 
list  gave  the  duty  on  carbonate  of  soda  at  J cent  per  pound  ; therefore 
by  entering  bicarbonate  of  soda  on  the  invoice  as  carbonate  of  soda 
only  J cent  per  pound  duty  was  paid.  Of  course  those  importers  who, 
like  myself,  paid  1J  cents  per  pound  duty  could  not  compete  with  our 
more  favored  brethren,  and  we  were  forced  to  discontinue  the  business. 
I got  the  facts  in  the  case,  including  the  marking  of  the  kegs  improperly 
carbonate  of  soda,  and  wrote  to  the  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  con- 
cerning it.  The  only  attention  the  complaint  received  was  that  my 
communication  had  been  referred  to  the  appraiser  at  New  York!  the 
very  man,  of  course,  who  must  have  been  a party  to  the  fraud. 

One  importer  admitted  to  me  that  he  imported  it  as  carbonate  of  soda 
and  paid  J cent  duty,  and  said  that  such  was  the  custom  in  the  New 
York  custom-house. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

L.  S.  WHITE. 

I will  add  that  bicarbonate  of  soda  is  that  used  in  medicine  and  for 
baking  powders $ sal  soda  is  used  for  washing  purposes. 


[A.  H.  Jones,  chemicals.'] 

Philadelphia,  July  21, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington  : 

Dear  Sir  : I am  in  receipt  of  a circular  from  your  Department,  ad- 
dressed to  me  as  secretary  of  the  Manufacturing  Chemists’  Association. 

I am  not  secretary  of  this  association,  but  am  associated  with  the 
organization,  and  more  or  less  active  in  its  affairs. 

Your  circular  has  been  mailed  by  me  to  Mr.  Henry  Bower,  secretary 
of  the  body  referred  to. 

I observe  that  you  state  : 

It  is  not  intended  that  your  reply  shall  be  confined  to  the  form  or  scope  of  the  in- 
quiries above  suggested,  but  you  are  invited  to  givo  the  fullest  expression  of  your 
views  on  the  general  subject,  indicated  in  such  manner  and  form  as  you  may  deem 
best. 

A revision  of  the  tariff  is  a subject  of  considerable  interest  to  the 
writer,  and  one  that  has  claimed  consideration  at  his  hands,  not  less 
than  five  or  six  times  in  the  past  fifteen  or  sixteen  years — there  having 
been  at  least  that  many  attempts  at  revision  in  the  period  indicated. 

The  proper  adjustment  of  duties  on  foreign  products  is  an  interesting 
question  to  me  as  an  American  citizen,  desiring  the  prosperity  of  the 
people  of  this  country  without  regard  to  section  or  nature  of  employ- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


181 


rnent.  How  to  arrange  duties  that  all  may  come  within  the  intent  of 
the  policy  of  the  Government  requires  a great  deal  of  careful  considera- 
tion, honesty  of  purpose,  and  unselfish  patriotism,  before  a correct 
schedule  can  be  reached. 

Whatever  may  be  the  policy  of  the  Government  it  should  be  fairly 
and  impartially  applied. 

This  was  the  view  of  Mr.  Benton  in  1828,  when  he  moved  to  have  the 
duty  increased  on  lead  and  largely  increased  on  indigo.  While  a free- 
trade  advocate,  he  believed  in  the  universal  application  of  what  was 
termed  the  American  system. 

In  this  view  he  was  sustained  by  the  ablest  men  from  the  South,  who 
scouted  the  idea  of  building  up  the  North  at  the  expense  of  the  South, 
and  who  demanded  for  the  indigo  industry  application  of  a principle 
favoring  the  manufacturers  of  the  North. 

And  it  was  because  of  the  denial  of  this  protection  to  what  was  then 
anticipated  might  become  a great  Southern  industry  that  embittered  the 
Southern  members  in  the  debates  on  the  tariff  4n  1828. 

You  may  not  be  aware  that  indigo  was  a Southern  industry  before 
cotton  was.  It  was,  and  was  expected  to  become  one  of  great  impor- 
tance. 

I avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  send  you  a paper,  to  which  I 
would  ask  your  attention. 

I would  call  to  your  notice  the  vast  amount  of  land  under  wheat  cul- 
tivation in  India  and  elsewhere — Australia,  Argentine  Confederation, 
&c. ; the  large  amount  of  wheat  exported  from  India  ; the  low  wages  in 
India;  the  assistance  given  by  Great  Britain  and  the  Indian  Govern- 
ment to  furnish  facilities  of  shipment  to  the  sea-board. 

I would  also  suggest  attention  to  what  is  being  done  in  India  and 
elsewhere  in  cotton. 

With  wages  at  8 to  9 cents  per  day  to  men  capable  of  living  on  rice 
at  2 cents  per  day,  as  is  the  case  in  India,  it  would  look  as  if  a duty  on 
cotton  might  be  a matter  of  tariff  revision  at  some  future  day,  as  well 
as  an  increased  duty  on  wheat,  if  American  farmers  and  American 
planters  are  to  control  the  home  market. 

I would  ask  your  attention  to  Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt’s  remarks  in  18G7 
on  the  question  of  wages,  especially  where  he  says  that  French  iron- 
masters are  obliged  to  give  such  low  wages  in  competing  with  England 
and  Belgium  that  the  laboring  men  can  afford  meat  but  once  a week. 

I would  ask  your  attention  to  the  statement  more  recently  made  by 
Mr.  Hewitt  regarding  free  raw  materials  that  all  that  is  required  to  en- 
large our  foreign  markets  is  free  raw  materials,  and  then  have  you  turn 
to  the  exports  of  cotton  manufactures  from  the  United  States. 

About  $12,000,000  average  from  the  United  States  (annual)  with  free 
cotton — and  the  best  of  free  cotton  produced  right  at  home — against 
over  $400,000,000  per  annum  from  Great  Britain.  This  clearly  demon- 
strates that  something  more  than  free  raw  materials  is  required  to  com- 
pete in  the  markets  of  the  world. 

Very  respectfully, 

. A.  H.  JONES. 

Note. — The  inclosure  mentioned  will  he  transmitted  separately  to  Con- 
gress. 


182  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

[G.  W.  & J.  W.  Reeves,  Chemicals .] 

Philadelphia,  July  28, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : Yonr  circular  letter  dated  the  24th  instant,  asking  our 
views  as  to  the  feasibility  of  making  the  duties  upon  imported  mer- 
chandise specific,  and  doing  away  with  the  old  ad  valorem  rates,  is 
duly  received ; and  in  reply  we  would  say,  the  articles  we  import, 
namely,  soda  ash,  paying^  cent  per  pound  duty;  soda  crystals,  paying 
J cent  per  pound  duty  ; caustic  soda,  paying  1 cent  per  pound  duty, 
and  bleaching  powders,  free,  are  all  at  specific  rates,  and  therefore  come 
within  your  idea  of  -the  simplification  required. 

We  will  say,  however,  we  think  the  change  a desirable  one  in  the  in- 
terests, of  our  revenue,  as  the  times  are  such  that  business  people  have 
seized  upon  every  available  pretext  to  get  lower  costs  on  all  imported 
merchandise,  and  it  is  frequently  said  of  more  particularly  the  wealthy 
class,  “ some  of  their  acts  would  get  men  of  less  wealth  and  social 
standing  into  the  penitentiary.” 

The  change  from  ad  valorem  to  specific  rates  will  certainly  prevent 
using  false  invoices,  which  can  be  made  up  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
a less  tariff,  aud  is,  in  our  judgment,  very  desirable. 

We  have  the  honor,  to  remain,  very  truly,  yours, 

G.  W.  & J.  W.  REEYES. 


[Valentine  & Company,  varnishes  and  colors.'] 

New  York,  August  10,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear.  Sir  : Replying  to  your  letters  of  July  18  and  31,  we  beg  to  say, 
that  while  we  appreciate  the  difficulties  attending  the  collection  of  ad 
valorem  duties,  and  are  aware  that  such  duties  on  varnish,  until  very  re- 
cently, have  been  evaded  to  the  extent  of  from  40  to  50  per  cent,  thereof, 
we  still  do  not  deem  it  feasible  to  make  the  duties  on  varnish  specific, 
except  to  the  extent  that  is  done  in  the  present  tariff,  which  imposes 
“on  spirit  varnishes  $1.32  additional  per  gallon”.;  and  the  reason  of 
our  opinion  is,  that  there  are  so  many  kinds  of  varnish,  and  their  prices 
vary  so  much  (viz,  all  the  way  from  $1  up  to  $G  per  gallon),  that  we 
know  of  no  way  of  describing  or  classifying  them  in  a tariff  bill  with 
reference  to  the  imposition  of  a specific  duty  of  the  proper  amount  for 
each  class  (that  is,  making  a sort  of  sliding  scale)  which  would  be  prac- 
ticable for  customs  officials  to  carry  out  or  enforce,  inasmuch  as  the 
proper  specific  duty  fora  $1  varnish  would  be  quite  inadequate  for  a $G 
varnish,  and  vice  versa. 

The  proceedings  in  the  New  York  custom-house,  within  the  last  few 
weeks,  have  satisfied  us  that  the  ad  valorem  duties  on  vArnish  can  be 
properly  enforced,  and  that  such  enforcement  depends  upon  the  integ- 
rity of  those  officials  who  have  to  do  with  the  appraisal. 

The  present  duties  on  varnish,  therefore,  if  honestly  collected  (and  we 
believe  with  proper  pains  in  selecting  officials  they  can  be)  will  call  forth 
no  complaint  from  us. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


183 


It  is  only  English  varnish  that  is  imported  into  this  country,  and  we 
believe  that  the  cost  of  the  labor  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  var- 
nishes here,  as  affected  by  the  increased  rate  of  wages,  is  more  than 
100  per  cent,  greater  than  in  England,  as  we  pay  more  than  100  per- 
cent. more  for  labor  aud  upwards  of  200  per  cent,  more  for  salaries  of 
foremen,  superintendents,  and  heads  of  departments,  than  is  paid  there, 
and  it  is  our  opinion  that  the  rate  of  interest  on  capital  employed  here 
is  more  than  2 per  cent,  greater  than  in  England. 

In  order  to  the  removal  of  an  incongruity  in  the  present  tariff,  we 
would  suggest  that  u gold  size,”  now  on  the  free-list,  be  stricken  there- 
from. 

Our  reasons  for  this  have  been  presented  to  Assistant  Secretary  Fair- 
child,  the  occasion  of  which  was  that  his  predecessor  had  decided  that 
Japan  gold  size  (which  is  a varnish)  was  included  in  the  term  “ gold 
size  ” in  the  free-list. 

We  do  not  desire  that  this  reply  be  treated  as  confidential  $ you  can 
make  any  use  of  it  you  deem  proper. 

Very  respectfully, 

VALENTINE  & COMPANY. 


[Lanman  & Kemp,  opium , cod-liver  oil , essential  oils .] 

New  York,  August  15,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.: 

Dear  Sir:  Replying  to  your  circular  letter  of  August  1,  in  which 
you  solicit  an  expression  of  our  views  with  respect  to  the  tariff  laws, 
we  beg  to  state  that  we  are  in  favor  of  the  admission  duty  free  of  all 
raw  materials  and  a reasonable  impost  upon  articles  manufactured 
therefrom.  We  are  not  cognizant  of  any  undervaluations  by  merchants 
in  our  line  of  business. 

Our  importations  and  consignments  of  merchandise  from  the  East 
Indies  and  Spanish  America  embrace  most  of  their  products  which  are 
sent  to  this  country.  With  few  exceptions  these  articles  are  free  of 
duty,  and  we  would  strongly  urge  that  such  as  opium,  cod  liver  and 
essential  oils,  and  a number  of  other  minor  articles  should  also  be 
placed  on  the  free-list.  They  are  not  produced  here,  and  in  our  judg- 
ment the  revenue  derived  from  them  does  not  pay  the  cost  of  collection. 

As  to  the  question  of  ad  valorem  duties,  by  all  means  substitute  for 
them  specific  duties,  thus  making  undervaluations  inoperative  and  un- 
necessary, and  at  the  same  time  doing  away  with  the  many  vexatious 
disputes  that  arise  under  the  ad  valorem  system. 

Concerning  the  removal  of  incongruities,  so  that  the  laws  may  be  more 
effective,  we  would  respectfully  say  that  from  the  experience  we  have 
had  with  some  of  the  men  in  authority  at  this  custom  house,  our  opin- 
ion is  that  the  Government  would  be  best  served  by  their  removal,  and 
by  filling  their  places  with  men  who  are  not  self-opinionated  nor  narrow- 
minded, but  capable  of  grasping  the  position  so  as  to  protect  the  Gov- 
vernment  while  at  the  same  time  facilitating  commerce. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 


LANMAN  & KEMP. 


184  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[The  Pennsylvania  Salt  Manufacturing  Company,  caustic  soda  and  soda  ash.'] 

Philadelphia,  September  9,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States , W aslimgton , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : We  have  carefully  considered  your  circular  calling  for 
information  on  the  tariff  question,  &c.,  and  most  cheerfully  reply  with 
such  as  our  experience  suggests. 

We  think  that  you  have  taken  the  only  true  and  proper  course,  in 
thus  applying  to  the  manufacturing  and  business  interests  of  the  coun- 
try, and  in  our  judgment  such  appeals  made  from  time  to  time  cannot 
fail  to  be  of  benefit  in  calling  your  attention  to  evils  and  abuses  which 
should  be  remedied. 

Our  business  is  confined  pretty  much  to  the  manufacture  of  chemicals 
of  small  value  and  great  bulk,  which  are  absolutely  necessary  to  dif- 
ferent trades  and  which  this  country  should  produce  within  itself,  as 
in. time  of  war  a dependence  on  foreign  supply  would  leave  the  country 
as  helpless  as  were  the  Southern  States  during  the  late  civil  conflict. 

Specific  duties  are  decidedly  preferable  to  ad  valorem.  One  great  diffi- 
culty experienced  is  in  the  case  of  unenumerated  articles,  where  the 
classification  admits  of  considerable  dispute ; many  of  these  are  com- 
pound, and  a corresponding  compound  duty  should  be  levied  upon 
them.  It  is  very  desirable  to  have  the  number  of  unenumerated  articles 
reduced  to  the  lowest  possible  minimum. 

Our  three  leading  manufactures  are  acids  (sulphuric  and  other  acids), 
and  soda  and  alum  of  their  different  kinds.  The  duties  on  these  are 
generally  specific.  We  went  before  the  late  tariff  commission  and 
showed  conclusively  that  it  was  for  the  interest  of  consumers  that  no 
change  be  made  in  the  duties  on  our  articles,  as  we  depended  on  the 
duty  as  protection,  and  that  being  thus  protected  the  competition  of 
our  manufactures  with  those  of  the  foreigners  had  reduced  prices  to 
lower  points  than  ever  before,  thus  securing  cheap  material  to  con- 
sumers, and  the  means  of  living  to  a large  population,  and  affording  to 
the  Government  a fair  revenue  from  the  forced  contribution  of  the 
duties  by  foreigners.  Notwithstanding  this,  the  duty  on  caustic  soda 
was  reduced  from  1^  cents  per  pound  to  1 cent  per  pound,  and  more 
than  half  the  reduction  in  duty  went  into  the  pockets  of  the  foreign 
manufacturers.  Caustic  soda  is  sold  on  a basis  of  60  per  ceut.  caustic. 
Within  a few  years  foreign  manufacturers  have  sent  here  a good  deal  of 
caustic  soda  of  from  70  to  76  per  cent,  strength,  which,  paying  the  same 
duty  as  the  60  per  cent.,  enables  them  to  evade  about  one-fourth  of  the 
duty,  besides  a corresponding  saving  in  freight.  Soda  ash  is  sold  at 
48  per  cent,  carbonate ; but  a good  deal  now  imported  is  of  much  greater 
purity,  and  the  duty  is  similarly  evaded.  In  justice  to  the  Government 
revenue,  as  well  as  to  the  domestic  manufacturer,  the  duties  should  be 
levied  on  these  articles  on  the  basis  of  60  per  cent,  and  48  percent,  soda, 
respectively. 

We  think  the  present  system  of  consular  certificates  for  invoices  oner- 
ous and  useless,  as  no  attention  is  paid  to  them  by  the  custom-house, 
and  they  are  not  considered  of  value  there ; nor  can  they  be  of  value 
while  consular  appointments  are  made  more  from  political  consideration 
than  from  fitness  or  experience  in  the  duties  of  the  positions.  In  our 
judgment  the  system  of  bonds  and  sureties  connected  with  the  entry  of 
dutiable  goods  is  an  unnecessary  tax  on  the  importer.  The  Government 
has  absolute  control  over  and  possession  of  the  goods  until  the  duties 
are  paid,  which  possession  should  be  security  enough,  without  exacting 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


185 


penal  bonds  for  double  amount  of  duties,  and  compelling  importers  to 
furnish  sureties  besides.  We  think,  too,  that  custom-house  fees  for 
permits,  bonds,  entries,  &c.,  should  be  abolished  as  a petty  tax  unworthy 
of  a great  nation. 

The  chemical  industries  of  this  country  are  very  important;  a very 
large  amount  of  capital  is  invested  in  them,  and  very  many  laborers  and 
others  are  dependent  on  them  for  their  support.  In  our  judgment,  no 
reduction  should  be  made  from  the  duties  on  chemicals  imposed  by  the 
present  tariff  until  a fair  trial  of  that  tariff  has  been  made  for  three  or 
four  years.  These  frequent  changes  are  hurtful,  and  business  generally 
can  better  adapt  itself  to,  and  bear,  a permanent  unfavorable  tariff  than 
a constantly  shifting  good  one.  In  our  opinion,  the  existing  tariff  on 
imports  has  much  less  to  do  with  the  depression  of  business  than  is 
generally  supposed.  The  commercial  depression  exists  all  over  the 
world;  but  we  in  the  United  States  have  been  and  are  suffering  less 
from  it  and  are  really  more  prosperous  than  any  community  in  any 
other  quarter  of  the  globe.  The  home  or  interstate  trade  of  this  country 
is  more  valuable  than  the  trade  of  any  other  country,  far  or  near ; and 
we  Americans  now  get  the  whole  of  it.  By  reducing  our  import  duties 
we  shall  only  invite  and  bring  upon  us  a foreign  competition,  to  the 
great  injury  of  our  home  trade,  for  which  any  increased  export  com- 
merce will  not  compensate  us.  Lower  duties  will  increase  the  revenue, 
already  supposed  to  be  too  large,  and  by  consequently  decreasing  home 
employment  will  cause  more  embarrassment  and  distress  than  is  now 
complained  of.  In  our  judgment,  the  silver  question  and  the  83-ceut 
dollar  coinage,  combined  with  the  dread  of  tariff*  legislation,  are  the  most 
potent  factors  in  the  sluggishness  and  apathy  experienced  in  American 
trade  and  commerce. 

We  think  that  the  first  step  should  be  the  abolition  of  the  inquisi 
torial  war  taxes  on  spirits  and  tobacco,  thus  putting  the  country  where 
it  stood  on  those  points  before  the  late  civil  war.  After  that,  should 
the  revenues  from  tariff  on  imports  prove  excessive,  a judicious  i educ- 
tion corresponding  to  said  excess  could  be  made  in  the  duties  on  im- 
ports. Due  weight  should  be  given  to 'the  fact  that  labor  in  this  coun- 
try is  better  paid  than  in  Europe  or  elsewhere,  and  that,  while  with 
lower  priced  labor  here  the  American  manufacturer  could  successfully 
compete  with  foreigners,  the  legislation  of  Congress  in  shutting  out 
Chinese  and  excluding  foreign  contract  labor  tends  to  cut  off  this 
method  of  reducing  costs  at  home.  If  the  tariff  must  be  altered,  a be- 
ginning can  be  made  by* the  abolition  of  the  duties  on  fruits  and  cer- 
tain food  articles  not  produced  in  this  country  which  do  not  yield  much 
revenue  through  the  custom-house,  thereby  reducing  the  expenses  of 
living  here.  Some  inconsistencies  and  inequalities  in  the  tariff*  might 
be  advantageously  remedied,  and  if  tariff  legislation  be  confined  to  such, 
the  silver  coinage  stopped,  and  the  war  taxes  on  spirits  and  tobacco  be 
abolished,  we  believe  that  a very  prosperous  future  will  open  for  this 
country.  We  think  that  American  legislators  should  carefully  weigh 
these  facts  and  legislate  for  Americans  and  American  interests  rather 
than  for  foreigners. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted  by 

The  Pennsylvania  Salt  Manufacturing  Company, 

ALBERT  F.  DAMON, 

President. 


186  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[The  same.] 

Philadelphia,  October  20,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States , Washington , D.  G.  ; 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  of  the  19th  instant,  please  con- 
sider yourself  at  liberty  to  communicate  the  contents  of  my  letter  of 
September  9 last  on  tariff  matters  to  Congress,  and  also  to  give  pub- 
licity to  the  same  in  any  way  that  you  may  think  proper. 

There  is  another  matter  connected  with  tariff  legislation  to  which  I 
respectfully  desire  to  call  your  attention  as  one  of  no  little  importance. 
I refer  to  the  clause  of  the  warehouse  act  compelling  withdrawal,  entry 
and  payment  of  duties  on  goods  warehoused  at  the  expiration  of  one 
year.  In  our  judgment,  there  should  be  no  limit  at  all ; and  we  believe 
that  this  change  of  the  law  would  make  this  country,  notably  New  York, 
a grand  entrepot  for  foreign  goods,  and  largely  increase  our  foreign  trade. 
London  enjoys  this  unlimited  privilege,  and  has  thereby  become  a great 
depot  for  the  products  of  the  whole  world,  so  that  cargoes  can  be  made 
up  from  the  London  bonded  warehouse  of  foreign  merchandise  often  as 
favorably  as  from  the  producing  countries  direct. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted  bv 

ALBERT  F.  DAMON, 

President  of  the  Pennsylvania  Salt  Manufacturing  Company . 


[Barstow  & Wliitelaw,  chemicals , paintsr  seeds .] 

Saint  Louis,  September  3,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C.: 

Dear  Sir  : We  have  your  communication  bearing  date  of  July  27, 
and  have  considered  contents. 

We  are  fully  convinced  that  there  is  much  opportunity,  and  a con- 
stant temptation  to  dishonesty  in  all  ad  valorem  duties.  We  therefore 
advocate  specific  duties  wherever  possibly  as  the  most  equitable  and 
just  to  importers  as  widely  separated  as  they  necessarily  are  in  this  great 
country. 

We  have  always  felt  a satisfaction  in  paying  a specific  duty  that  we 
cannot  feel  where  articles  are  scheduled  ad  valorem.  Although,  all 
things  being  equal,  there  can  be  no  fairer  or  more  equitable  mode  of 
reaching  the  amount  which  should  be  assessed  on  an  article  than  ac- 
cording to  its  intrinsic  value,  but  we  must  say  that  we  believe  that  there 
are  so  many  elements  to  be  taken  into  consideration  in  arriving  at  this 
value,  that  it  is  many  times  far  from  just  to  the  Government  or  rival 
importers  whose  ideas  of  honor  and  equity  move  on  a different  plane. 

It  appears  to  us  that  Government  should  reduce  as  much  as  it  is  in 
their  power  the  factors  which  enter  into  the  appraisement. 

WThen  specific  duties  are  levied,  the  number  of  pounds,  gallons,  yards, 
&c.,  are  always  with  or  under  the  control  of  the  appraiser.  This  is  en- 
tirely different  when  quality,  percentage,  packing,  envelopes,  state  of 
the  market,  shrewdness  of  the  buyer,  honest  invoices,  and  such  like 
contingencies  go  to  make  up  the  value. 

Many  large  foreign  manufacturers  have  resident  agents  in  the  large 
business  centers  of  the  United  States  to  whom  consignments  are  made, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  187 

and  by  whom  the  articles  are  cleared  upon  invoices  which  can  be  ad- 
justed to  the  situation  without  exciting  suspicion. 

All  such  opportunities  would  be  completely  closed  by  specific  duties. 
Competitors  would  then  know  exactly  what  duties  were  paid  by  rivals, 
and  could  govern  themselves  accordingly. 

In  regard  to  English  chemicals,  paints,  seeds,  &c.  (which  are  the 
articles  weare  interested  in),  there  seems  to  be  no  complaint  to  make  of 
present  schedule  duties  levied.  In  changing  articles  from  ad  valorem 
to  specific,  we  think  great  care  should  be  exercised  in  order  that  they 
may  not  be  made  excessive. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

BARSTOW  & WHITELAW. 


[ Rosengarten  & Sons,  quinine , cinchonidia,  t^c.] 

Philadelphia,  August  29, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C.  : 

Dear  Sir:  We  beg  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  circular  of 
July  18,  in  reference  to  the  tariff.  The  Manufacturing  Chemists’  Associa- 
tion of  the  United  States,  at  the  request  of  u the  Tariff  Commission  ” de- 
voted considerable  time  and  labor  to  the  matter  of  simplifying  the  sched 
ule  and  rates  of  duties  on  chemicals,  and  are  now  preparing  a reply  to 
your  circular. 

We  would  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  damaging  legisla- 
tion by  which  “quinia,  sulphate  of,  salts  of,  and  cinchonidia”  were  put 
on  the  free  list,  and  subsequent  Treasury  decisions  by  which  all  pro- 
ducts of  cinchona  barks  are  admitted  free  of  duty. 

In  consequence  of  this  legislation,  the  manufacture  of  sulphate  of  qui- 
nine and  the  other  products  of  cinchona  barks  in  the  United  States  has 
been  greatly  restricted. 

Foreign  manufacturers  of  these  goods  have  shipped  enormous  quanti- 
ties  to  the  United  States,  with  which,  in  consequence  of  the  higher  cost 
of  labor  in  this  country,  it  is  impossible  to  compete  successfully  with- 
out a countervailing  duty. 

When  the  duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  sulphate  of  quinine  was  removed, 
July  1,  1879,  the  manufacturers’  price  here  was  $3.35  per  ounce  bulk, 
and  the  price  in  London  was  about  12s.  per  ounce,  or  very  nearly  the 
same  with  the  duty  added.  The  price  here  now  is  68  cents  per  ounce, 
and  at  London  2s.  10 d.  to  3s.  3 d.y  according  to  brand.  This  great 
reduction  in  value  is  owing  to  the  success  of  the  cinchona  plantations 
in  India,  Ceylon,  and  Java,  established  and  fostered  by  the  British  and 
Dutch  Governments.  The  first  result  was  the  shipment,  in  the  j^ear 
1869,  of  28  ounces  of  the  cultivated  bark,  in  1884 11,500,000  pounds  were 
shipped  from  Ceylon  and  1,038,934  pounds  from  Java.  * This  represents 
more  sulphate  of  quinine  than  was  ever  exported,  in  one  season,  in  the 
barks  from  the  natural  forests  of  South  America,  and  the  price  of  the  bark 
has  fallen  at  London,  from,  say  2s.  M.  per  pound,  in  1879  for  1 per  cent, 
of  quinine  to  4 pence.  The  importations  in  the  United  States  were  of 
sulphate  and  other  salts  of  quinine  228,348  ounces  in  1879,  sulphate  and 
other  salts  of  quinine  and  cinchonidine  1,871,600  ounces  in  1885,  for  the 
fiscal  years  ending  June  30. 


188  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

We  would  request  that  in  making  your  suggestions  to  Congress  you 
will  recommend  that  “quinia,  sulphate  of,  salts  of,  and  cinchonidia”  be 
stricken  from  the  free  list,  to  enable  American  manufacturers  to  com- 
pete with  those  of  Europe. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

ROSENGARTEN  & SONS. 


[McKesson  & Robbins,  drugs  and  chemicals .] 

New  York,  July  29,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary , de.,  Washington,  D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : We  beg  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  esteemed  favor 
of  the  18th  instant,  in  regard  to  undervaluations  in  the  customs  depart- 
ment;, and  submit,  as  requested,  our  views. 

Without  doubt  there  should  be  in  any  tariff  list  as  few  ad  valorem 
rates  as  possible,  and  if  the  sole  object  of  customs  duties  be  revenue, 
all  rates  should  be  specific. 

Our  protective  tariff,  however — applied  very  properly  to  manufact- 
ured goods  in  general,  because  our  commerce  with  foreign  countries  is 
limited,  and  very  improperly  to  natural  products  at  all  times — necessi- 
tates more  or  less  ad  valorem  rates.  For  example : 

Florida  wants  a protective  duty  on  sponges,  which  are  a natural  prod-  * 
uct,  and  varieties  so  differ  and  are  so  intermixed  as  to  cost  from  less 
than  5 cents  to  over  $50  per  pound,  which  fact  necessitates  an  ad 
valorem  rate ; and  reasoning  from  this  we  may  conclude  that  the  total 
abolition  of  ad  valorem  rates  in  our  list  of  duties  is  impracticable. 

It  should  be  further  remarked  that  two  thirds  of  all  imports  in  our 
line  are  free  of  duty,  and  where  ad  valorem  rates  exist  they  are  gen- 
erally low  ones ; and  hence  there  is  but  little  temptation  in  our  line  of 
business  to  undervalue  invoices. 

But  the  position  our  customs  officials  have  taken  recently  in  New 
York  in  marking  up  values  to  the  highest  known  price,  as  the  true. or 
proper  market  value,  we  regard  as  very  unjustifiable,  especially  when 
the  authorities  are  well  convinced  that  the  invoice  price  is  without  doubt 
the  actual  price  paid,  as  under  this  system  a single  bad  purchase  in  any 
market  affects  all  similar  purchases,  which  it  ought  not. 

There  should  also,  we  think,  be  a limit  within  which  a reappraisement 
should  be  called  for;  unless  the  amount  of  duty  in  dispute  is  as  much 
as  $100  in  amount,  no  merchant,  as  appraiser,  should  be  called  upon  to 
give  his  time  for  the  reappraisement. 

We  submit,  in  conclusion,  as  general  remarks,  that  our  views  about 
the  only  proper  remedy  for  all  undervaluations  consists  in  the  adoption 
of  the  usual  European  practice  in  matters  of  this  sort,  under  suitable 
limitations,  to  wit: 

The  Government  should  have  the  privilege  or  be  compelled  to  take 
into  its  possession  dutiable  goods  at  the  entry  price. 

The  true  view  about  all  dutiable  imports  appears  to  us  to  be  that  all 
these  undertakings  are  enterprises  in  partnership,  enterprises  wherein 
the  Government  makes  terms  to  suit  itself;  and  hence  the  Government 
is  honorably  bound  to  take  the  goods  whenever  a dispute  occurs  about 
the  entry  value. 

Our  United  States  Government  is  the  only  respectable  one  of  impor- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  189 

tance  upon  the  face  of  the  globe  that  is  cursed  with  a secret-service  spy 
system  in  regard  to  imports. 

The  old  English  law  on  this  subject,  which  prevailed  in  Great  Britain 
so  long  as  ad  valorem  duties  existed  in  the  British  Islands,  is  to-day 
enforced  in  our  neighboring  country,  Canada. 

Very  respectfully  submitted. 

MCKESSON  & BOBBINS. 


[Powers  & Weightman,  drugs  and  chemicals.'] 

Philadelphia,  September  3, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning-, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circulars  of  July  18  and  July  24  were  duly  re- 
ceived. In  reply  we  beg  to  state  that  rates  on  chemicals  now  in  force 
are  very  moderate,  e.  g.: 

Ad  valorem. — Five  items  at  10  per  cent. ; one  item  at  15  per  cent. ; 
twenty  items  at  20  per  cent. : six  items  at  25  per  cent. ; two  items  at  30 
per  cent. ; one  item  at  35  per  cent. $ one  item  at  40  per  cent. ; and  one 
item  at  45  per  cent. 

Specific. — As  to  specific  duties,  it  will  be  found  that  the  average  rate 
converted  into  ad  valorem,  and  based  on  average  prices  abroad,  ruling 
say,  during  the  past  three  or  four  years,  will  not  exceed  20  to  25  per 
cent.,  which  cannot  be  regarded  as  high,  especially  in  view  of  rates  im- 
posed on  other  forms  of  manufactured  goods. 

It  was  understood  by  manufacturing  chemists  during  the  last  con- 
sideration of  the  tariff  [i.  e.,  that  of  the  Tariff  Commission)  that  the  intent 
of  the  revision  was  to  reduce  rates  to  as  low  a level  as  could  be  safely 
done.  Acting  upon  this  conviction,  rates  were  modified  in  the  direction 
of  reduction  to  such  a degree  as  to  leave  but  little  if  any  margin  for 
further  contraction. 

The  testimony  given  before  the  Tariff  Commission,  as  published,  will 
illustrate  the  correctness  of  this  assertion.  Individual  firms  and  the 
Manufacturing  Chemists’  Association,  through  the  officers  of  that  body, 
gave  assurance  of  a desire  to  go  as  far  as  prudent  in  the  way  of  reducing 
duties,  and  the  low  rates  as  embodied  in  the  present  tariff  confirm  the 
honesty  of  their  assurances. 

We  are  therefore  of  the  opinion  that  duties  on  chemical  products 
should  not  be  further  reduced,  certainly  not  as  a rule.  Possibly  there 
may  be  a few  exceptions. 

As  to  specific  duties,  we  favor  them  where  values  do  not  fluctuate  to 
any  very  marked  degree.  There  are  some  chemicals  so  liable  to  change 
in  price  as  to  render  ad  valorem  rates  necessary.  There  are  also  classes 
of  goods,  covering  numerous  items  (too  numerous  to  be  mentioned  in 
detail)  of  varying  value,  which  can  only  be  provided  for  by  drag-net 
clauses  and  ad  valorem  duties. 

The  present  tariff  shows  a large  number  of  specific  duties  in  the  chem- 
ical schedule,  but  the  use  of  ad  valorem  rates  to  some  extent  was  re- 
garded as  unavoidable. 

As  to  undervaluations  we  have  no  special  complaint  to  make.  Any- 
thing that  has  appeared  to  us  to  beirregular  has  always  received  proper 
attention  when  brought  before  the  customs  officials. 

Tax  on  distilled  spirits. — We  desire  to  avail  ourselves  of  this  opportu- 
nity to  call  your  attention  to  the  very  serious  burden  imposed  on  man- 


190  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


ufactures  of  chemicals  by  the  tax  on  distilled  spirits — e.  g the'  tax  on 
distilled  spirits  is  90  cents  per  gallon.  This  is  equal  to  a tax  on  94  per 
cent,  alcohol  of  about  $1.70  per  gallon  (say,  94  per  cent  x 2 = 1.88  x 90  = 
$1.69  per  gallon). 


A barrel  of  alcohol  of,  say,  46  gallons,  at  $2.07  per  gallon,  costs $95  22 

The  tax  on  it  equals  (1.88  X 46=  86  X 90  = $77.40) 77  40 

Leaving  as  the  value  of  the  alcohol 17  82 


This  enormous  tax  burdens  our  industry  very  heavily,  as  you  can 
readily  perceive ; but  as  an  illustration  we  may  cite  the  article  chlo- 
roform. 

The  tax  (excise)  on  every  pound  of  chloroform  is  equal  to  about  35 
cents. 

The  duty  (customs)  on  imported  chloroform  is  50  cents  per  pound. 

You  will  observe  that  very  little  of  the  duty  is  to  protect  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturer.  It  is  rather  a countervailing  duty  (to  offset  the  ex- 
cise) similar  to  that  imposed  in  Great  Britain,  where  pure  spirits  and 
not  methylated  spirits  are  used.  In  Great  Britain  manufacturers  have 

Free  methylated  spirits  (a  mixture  of  alcohol  and  wood  naphtha),  but 
pure  alcohol  is  taxed. 

We  would  also  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  depressed  con- 
dition of  the  quinine  industry  in  this  country — due  to  the  removal  of  the 
duty  of  20  per  ceut.  in  1879. 

Since  the  admission  of  foreign  quinine  free  of  duty  this  country  has 
been  glutted  with  the  products  of  European  factories.  Importations 
have  steadily  and  rapidly  increased,  as  you  will  observe  by  the  follow- 
ing statistics: 


For  fiscal  year  ended  June  30 — Ounces. 

1877  75,804 

1878  17,549 

1879  228,348 

1880  416, 998 

1881  408,851 

1882  794, 495 

1883  1,055,764 

1884  1,263,732 


(We  have  not  been  able  to  get  the  figures  for  18S5  from  the  Bureau 
of  Statistics.) 

As  there  is  no  outlet  for  American  quinine  abroad,  the  home  or  Amer- 
ican market  alone  is  available  to  American  manufacturers ; and  this 
market  has  been  so  thoroughly  sought  after  by  foreigners  and  crowded 
with  their  goods  as  to  prevent  Americans  from  longer  carrying  on  the 
business  with  any  satisfaction  or  profit. 

The  Government  derives  no  revenue,  and  consumers  pay  fully  as  much 
as  they  would  do  were  a moderate  duty  imposed — e.  g .,  present  price 
abroad,  say  3 shillings,  or  75  cents  per  ounce,  20  per  cent,  on  75  cents  = 
15  cents. 

Fifteen  cents  distributed  over  an  avoirdupois  ounce  of  4374  grains 
could  not  make  any  difference  iu  price  on  any  article  dispensed  a few* 
grains  at  a time. 

As  to  tbe  decline  in  tbe  price  of  quinine  (or  sulphate  of  quinia)  this  is 
universal — iu  Europe  as  in  tbe  United  States — and  is  due  to  the  low  price 
of  bark  and  excessive  competition.  The  low  price  of  bark  is  owing  to 
tbe  large  supplies  of  cultivated  cinchona,  which  in  turn  result  from  tbe 
efforts  made  by  tbe  British  Government  to  provide  a large  quantity  of 
crude  material  in  Ceylon  and  elsewhere  iu  the  East. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  191 


The  low  price  of  quinine  is  to  be  traced  clearly  to  the  above  causes. 
As  to  the  prices  abroad — 


Years. 

Average  price 
first  six  months. 

I 

Average  price 
last  six  months. 

1877  

1878  

8.  d. 
13  5J 

11  ll| 

12  2 

11  9 4 

11  5 1 

9 9 

6 114 
6 04 
5 14 

8.  d. 
12  24 

11  9| 

12  24 
12  ... 

9 1 

9 24 

7 11 

1879.. r. 

1880 

1881.. 

1882 ...  . . 

1883 

1884 

1884 

Present  quotations  are,  say,  2s.  11  d.  to  3s.  per  ounce. 

June,  1877,  quotations  were,  16s.  to  16s.  6d.  per  ounce  for  Howard’s 
in  vials  (English) ; 14s.  9d.  to  15s.  3d.  per  ounce  for  Pelletier’s  in  vials 
(French);  14s.  9 d.  per  ounce  for  German  in  tins. 

Against  these  figures  we  have,  August  15,  1885,  3s.  6d.  per  ounce  for 
Howard’s  in  vials ; 3s.  3d.  per  ounce  for  Pelletier’s  in  vials ; 3s.  per  ounce 
for  German  in  tins. 

(These  quotations  are  taken  from  special  lists  issued  by  the  same 
house  in  London.) 

The  decline  in  Europe  from  16s.  6$.  in  1877  to  3s.  in  1885  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  removal  of  a 20  per  cent,  duty  in  the  United  States. 

As  to  the  large  supplies  of  cultivated  bark,  the  exports  from  Ceylon 
rose  from  28  ounces  in  1869  to  6,925,595  pounds  in  1882-’83  (season),  and 
to  11,500,000  pounds  in  1883-’84  (season). 

The  accuracy  of  these  figures  can  very  readily  be  tested  if  you  are 
disposed  to  investigate  the  subject. 

That  so  important  an  article  as  quinine  should  be  manufactured  in 
this  country  can  hardly  be  questioned;  and  that  the  makers  of  the  ar- 
ticle should  be  put  upon  the  same  footing  as  other  American  manufact- 
urers would  appear  to  be  but  reasonable. 

Foreign  manufacturers,  who  have  great  advantages  in  cheaper  labor, 
lower  cost  of  apparatus,  machinery,  buildings,  and  general  expenses, 
have  been  built  up  by  the  opportunities  offered  them  to  supply  this 
market,  while  American  producers,  heavily  handicapped,  have  strug- 
gled to  maintain  a portion  of  the  home  trade,  which  has  been  done  at  a 
loss,  without  the  slightest  prospect  of  introducing  their  brands  into 
Europe. 

We  are  advised  that  the  policy  of  the  administration,  so  far  as  tariff 
matters  are  concerned,  to  be  to  correct  errors,  adjust  inequalities,  and 
right  what  is  wrong.  Further,  that  manufactured  goods  are  not  to  be 
placed  on  the  free  list. 

If  such  is  the  fact,  may  we  not  look  to  your  Department  to  investigate 
the  case  we  have  presented  for  consideration,  and  reasonably  expect 
that  this  important  part  of  our  business  may  be  restored  to  us?  We 
feel  that  this  would  be  but  just  and  in  harmony  with  the  general  policy 
of  the  Government. 

Very  respectfully, 

POWERS  & WEIGHTMAK 

P.  S. — It  is  well  known  that  upon  the  removal  of  the  duty  European 
manufacturers  increased  their  productive  capacity  very  largely,  with 
special  reference  to  supplying  this  market. 


192  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TEEASUEY. 


[Linder  & Meyer,  chemicals,  tfc.] 

Boston.  July  29,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington,  1).  C.  : 

Sir  : In  reply  to  yours  of  the  27tli  we  beg  to  state  that  in  our  opin- 
ion both  the  Government  and  merchants  would  be  benefited  by  the 
adoption  of  a specific  duty,  as  far  as  possible,  on  all  merchandise. 

We  have  very  few  articles  in  our  line  which  pay  ad  valorem  duty,  and 
those  we  give  below,  with  present  rate  of  duty,  and  the  equivalent  if 
specific:  sal  ammoniac,  10  per  cent.  = .8  cents  per  pound  ; muriate  am- 
monia, other  than  sal  ammoniac,  10  per  cent.  = ^ cent  per  pound  ; olive 
oil,  for  manufacturing,  25  per  cent.  = 12  cents  per  gallon;  gelatine, 30 
per  cent.  = 30  cents  per  dozen  packets  of  2 ounces  each  ; fire-bricks,  20 
per  cent.  = $1.45  per  thousand ; clay  tobacco  pipes,  35  per  cent.  = 8 
cents  per  gross. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

LINDER  & MEYER. 


[Gantz,  Jones  &.  Co.,  drugs  and  chemicals .] 

New  York,  August  5,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of.  the  Treasury , Washington  D.  C.  : 

Dear  Sir  : We  are  in  receipt  of  your  highly  valued  circular  letter  of 
1st  instant,  requesting  our  views  in  regard  to  the  feasibility  of  simpli- 
fying the  tariff,  &c. 

Most  of  the  goods  in  our  line  are  now  paying  specific  duties,  and  it 
certainly  is  the  most  equitable  way  of  collecting  duty,  and  prevents  the 
fraud  of  undervaluation. 

Caustic  soda  is  taxed  1 cent  per  pouud  duty,  on  a cost  of  1J  cents 
per  pound.  It  should  be  free.  This  high  duty  on  a chemical  so  much 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  soap,  starch,  and  many  other  things  adds 
so  largely  to  the  cost  of  these  manufactures  that  it  more  than  balances 
the  protective  duty  on  them.  The  importations  of  caustic  soda  amount 
to  many  thousands  of  tons,  and  the  duty  protects  no  one,  for  none  is 
made  here. 

We  think  that  all  chemicals,  oils,  dyes,  and  drugs  should  be  free: 
Drugs  for  the  reason  that  no  tax  should  be  added  to  the  sick  and  suffer- 
ing, many  of  whom  while  sick  have  to  be  supported  by  charity.  Chemi- 
cals, oils,  and  dyes  should  be  free  because  they  enter  so  largely  into 
many  other  kinds  of  manufactures,  which  are  thus  handicapped,  and 
competition  prevented  with  foreign  goods. 

Cream  tartar. — The  duty  on  cream  tartar  is  6 cents  per  pound,  but 
should  be  free  for  the  reason  that  it  is  the  main  article  of  cost  in  all 
baking  powders,  now  in  such  general  use,  and  the  cost  of  baking  pow- 
ders is  enhanced  4 cents  a pouud,  with  no  benefit  to  the  people  what- 
ever, but  only  enriching  a monopoly  manufacturing  concern,  the  duty 
being  prohibitory  on  it. 

Castor  oil  should  be  free  instead  of  the  high  duty  of  $1  per  gallon 
for  the  benefit  of  two  or  three  makers,  who  by  the  high  duty  tax  the  sick 
poor  of  the  whole  country.  In  England  and  Europe  it  sells  for  about 
7 to  8 cents  per  pound  and  here  at  18, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


193 


We  tbiuk  that  the  duty  on  all  spices  should  be  restored  to  the  old  • 
rates.  Spices  are  all  luxuries  and  can  very  well  afford  to  pay  high  du- 
ties without  injury  to  any  one  and  without  assisting  any  monopoly. 

Very  respectfully, 

GANTZ,  JONES  & CO. 


[F.  Koerner,  sulphuric  acid.] 


Wilkes  Barre,  Pa.,  August  17;  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Washington , I).  G. : 

Sir  : Believing  from  certain  reports  in  the  newspapers  that  informa- 
tion as  to  practical  working  of  certain  tariff  provisions  may  not  be  un- 
welcome to  the  Department,  I beg  to  submit  the  following  : 

Sulphuric  acid  is  admitted  free.  We  have  made  this  acid  for  some 
years  of  iron  pyrites,  being  cheaper  than  from  Sicilian  brimstone.  There 
are  just  over  our  border,  in  Ontario,  good,  workable  beds  of  these  pyrites, 
containing  an  appreciable  amount  of  gold.  We  could  import  these  py- 
rites as  gold  ores  free;  but  as  they  contain  80  per  cent,  of  quartz  gangue, 
and  the  tariff*  charges  on  all  ores  u that  have  been  milled  or  advanced 
in  value  ” are  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  this  acts  prohibitory.  It  would 
require  in  Ontario  about  seven  men  to  mill  and  concentrate  100  tons  of 
ore  daily  into  20  tons  of  concentrates  ; these,  imported  to  the  neighbor- 
hood of  New  York,  and  subjected  to  treatment  for  the  extraction  of  the 
gold  and  the  making  of  sulphuric  acid,  would  take  fifty  men  first  and 
last,  and  consume  American  coal  and  other  American  material ; but  it 
is  not  possible  under  present  tariff*  conditions.  The  10  per  cent,  ad  valo- 
rum  duty  should  be  taken  off*.  If  it  is,  I know  that  works  will  be  built; 
otherwise  we  shall  have  to  start  the  works  in  Canada  and  bring  the 
finished  acid  over. 

The  duty  on  crude  glycerine,  paying  2 cents  per  pound,  and  that  on 
crude  saltpeter,  paying  1 cent,  are  onerous  and  benefit  nobody ; they 
simply  make  our  explosives  dearer,  and  should  be  taken  off. 

Trusting  that  these  matters  will  receive  consideration,  if  any  changes 
are  proposed,  I remain, 

Very  respectfully, 


F.  KOERNER, 
Mining  Engineer . 


[Daniel  F.  Tiemann,  paints,  colors,  and  chemicals .] 

New  York,  September  18,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir:  I inclose  a list  of  articles  made  by  us  and  materials  used 
in  a printed  sheet  of  the  tariff  of  1846,  ’57,  and  ’69,  which  I made  up 
for  Mr.  F.  Wood,  and  in  it  equalizing  our  goods  at  20  per  cent,  instead 
of  25  per  cent.,  as  provided  by  the  tariff  of  1869,  also  placing  all  articles 
that  are  used  by  other  manufacturers  at  same,  20  per  cent.,  other  articles 
free.  The  tariff  of  1869  places  acetate  of  lead  at  20  cents  per  pound, 
since  been  reduced  to  10  cents.  In  England  the  price  is  equal  to  7 cents 
per  pound ; Paris  white  now  J cent,  per  pound,  tariff  of  1869  1 cent.,  in 
S.  Ex.  72 13 


194  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


England  $12  per  ton ; cliff  stone,  from  which  it  is  made,  free  (prop- 
erly) ; whiting  in  Europe  $5  per  ton ; chalk  free,  duty  now  £ cent,  per 
pound;  tannin  or  tanic  acid,  tariff  1869,  $2  per  pound,  price  in  England 
equal  to  about  30  cents.  I call  your  attention  to  these  few  articles  to 
show  you  the  general  unsuitable  tariff  on  our  raw  materials.  Our  man- 
ufactures are  raw  material  for  paper-hanging  manufacturers  and  calico 
printers.  I find  it  difficult  to  reduce  many  articles  to  a specific  duty, 
as  there  are  so  many  qualities  of  same  grade  of  goods,  as,  per  example, 
vegetable  colors  vary  from  3 cents  per  pound  to  30  cents — pulp  colors 
of  paper-hanging  and  calico  printers.  Therefore  you  see,  there  are  a 
considerable  mixing  up  of  manufactures.  We  would  rather  have  the 
tariff  of  1857  than  any  other. 

I will  go  on  to  Washington  and  explain  further  at  any  time  you  may 
name. 

Yours,  &c., 

BAWL  F.  TIEMANN, 

Of  D.  F.  Tiemann  & Co. 


Articles. 

Tariff 

proposed. 

Tariff 

1846. 

Tariff  j 
1857.  , 

Acid : 

Per  ct. 

Per  ct. 

Per  ct. 

Citric 

20  1 

10 

4 

Muriatic 

20 

10 

4 : 

Oxalic 

20 

20 

4 

Tannic 

20 

30 

24 

Tartaric 

20 

20 

4 

Sulphuric  (oil  vitriol) 

20 

10 

4 

Acetic 

20 

20 

4 

Albumen 

20 

Aqua  ammonia 

20 

20 

24 

Barytes : 

Ground,  refined 

20 

20 

15 

Muriate 

20 

20 

15  I 

Nitrate 

20 

Blanc  fixe 

■ 20 

Berlin,  Prussian,  Chinese,  or  blues 

20 

20 

4 

from  prussiate  of  potash. 

Blue  vitriol  (sulphate  of  copper)  . . 

20 

20 

15 

Blacks : 

Ivory 

20 

20 

15 

Frankfort 

20 

20 

20 

Lamp 

20 

20 

15 

Lead 

20 

20 

15 

Borate  of  lime 

20 

Borax 

20 

25 

4 

Carmine : 

A water  color 

20 

30 

I 

24 

Lake,  dry  or  in  oil 

20 

Dry 

20 

Chalk,  red 

20 

20 

4 

Copperas  (sulphate  of  iron) 

20 

20 

15  1 

Cream  of  tartar 

20 

20 

4 

Chloride  of  lime 

20 

I 10 

4 i 

Chloride  of  potash 

20 

Colcother,  oxide  of  iron,  or  polish- 

20 

30 

20  | 

ing  powder. 

Indian  red  

20 

30 

20 

Cremnitz  white 

20 

20 

15 

Earths,  brown,  red,  blue,  yellow 

ochers : 

Dry • 

20 

24  | 

In  oil 

20 

Emetic,  tartar 

20 

30 

24  1 

Tlijamel  white  or  satin  white 

20 

Fig  blue  . 

20 

20 



15  1 

Linseed  oil 

20 

20 

15 

Hempseed  oil 

20 

20 

15 

Indigo  carmine 

20 

1 

Tariff  1869. 


10  cents  per  pound . 

10  per  cent 

4  cents  per  pound  . 

$2  per  pound 

20  cents  per  pound . 
1 cent  per  pound  . . 
80  cents  per  pound . 
25  per  cent 


£ cent  per  pound  . . 
20  per  cent 


30  per  cent 

3 cents  per  pound . 

25  per  cent 

- . do 

20  per  cent 

$10  per  ton 

5 cents  per  pound  . 
10  cents  per  pound . 

35  per  cent 

— do 

25  per  cent 

20  per  cent 

i cent  per  pound  . . 
10  cents  per  pound . 
30  cenls  per  100 
pounds. 

6 cents  per  pound  . 

Free  

25  per  cent 

3 cents  per  pound  . 


£ cent  per  pound  . . 
li  cents  per  pound . 
1 5 cents  per  pound . 
3 cents  per  pound. 

25  per  cent 

30  cents  per  gallon 
23  cents  per  gallon. 
20  per  cent 


8 cents  per  pound. 

Free  now. 

G cents  per  pound. 
8 cents  per  pound. 


$3  per  ton. 

50  cents  per  100 
pounds. 

1 cent  per  pound. 

75  cents  per  100 
pounds. 

8 cents  per  pound. 

1 cent  per  pound. 

50  cents  per  100 
pounds. 


$1  per  pound. 

Do. 

Do. 

i cent  per  pound. 
6 cents  per  pound. 


3 cents  per  pound. 


1£  cents  per  pound. 
1 cent  per  pound. 


£ cent  per  pound. 

| cent  per  pound. 

8 cents  per  pound. 
75  cents  per  100 
pounds. 

10  cents  per  gallon. 
5 cents  per  gallon. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


195 


Articles. 


Lakes : 

Water  colors 

Drops 

Paint 

Lead,  all  manufactures  of,  not 

otherwise  provided  for 

Lead  acetate  (sugar  of  lead) : 

White 

Brown 

Lead: 

Nitrate 

White,  or  carbonate 

Bed 

Litharge  

Orange 

Paints,  and  painters’  colors,  dry,  in 

oil  or  water 

Paints  for  paper  hangings 

Paints  for  calico  printing 

Painters’  colors,  all  kinds,  not 

otherwise  provided  for 

Dutch  pink 

Terra  de  Sienna 

French  or  Paris  green 

Kings  yellow 

Lakes 

Mineral  green. 

Verditer  green 

Bose  pink 

Spanish  brown,  dry  or  in  oil 

Terra  umber 

Phosphate  soda 

Plumbago 

Potash,  bi-chromate  or  soda 

Chromate 

Chlorate 4 

Prussiate  yellow 

Pure 

Bed  prussiate 

Prepared  clay 

Prussian  blue,  Chinese,  Paris,  or 
any  blues  of  which  prussiate  of 

potash  is  the  coloring 

Purple  liquor  [tin]  

Putty 

Saleratus 

Epsom  salts 

Glauber  salts 

Bochelle  salts 

Satin  white 


Sal  soda 

Soda,  ash 

Carbonate 

Bi- carbonate 

Caustic 

Spelter,  zinc— manufactures  of. 

Sulphate  of  arsenic 

Venetian  red,  dry 


In  oil 

Verdigris 

Vermilion 

Wash  blue 

Wet  blue 

Whiting,  dry 

In  oil 

Paris  White,  dry 

In  oil 

Ochres,  in  oil  

Chrome  yellow  of  all  grades 
Cromo,  green,  of  all  grades  . 

Oxide  or  zinc 

Alums  ol  all  kinds 


Carbonate  of  ammonia 
Analine  dyes 


Sulphur  flors. 


Antimony,  crude,  or  regulus  of 
Argols,  crude 


Tariff 

proposed. 

Tariff 

1846, 

Tariff 

1857. 

Per  ct. 

Per  ct. 

Per  ct. 

20 

30 

24 

20 

20 

20 

30 

24 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

30 

24 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

20 

is 

20 

20 

20 

20 

26 

15 

20 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15  ! 

20 

20 

20 

8 

20 

10 

4 

20 

20 

8 

20 

20 

20 

5 

4 

20 

20 

30 

24 

20 

20 

24 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

20 

15 

20 

30 

24 

20 

20 

. 24 

20 

20 

24 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

15 

20 

20 

■ 1 20 

20 

15 

. Free 

20 

8 

.1  Free 

5 

1 Free.. 

Tariff  1869. 


35  per  cent 


35  per  cent 

26  cents  per  pound 
5 cents  per  pound. 

3 cents  per  pound 
3 cents  per  pound. 
3 cents  per  pound. 
3 cents  per  pound. 
25  per  cent 


25  per  cent . 
25  per  cent. 
25  per  cent . 


25  per  cent 

25  per  cent 

25  per  cent 

30  per  cent 

25  per  cent 

25  per  cent 

30  per  cent 

25  per  cent 

25  per  cent  

25  per  cent 

\ cent  per  pound.. 

20  per  cent 

20  per  cent 

4 cents  per  pound . . 
3 cents  per  pound. . 
6 cents  per  pound. . 

5 cents  per  pound . . 

20  per  cent  

10  cents  per  pound. 
$5  per  ton 


30  per  cent 

20  per  cent 

1^  cents  per  pound 
1|  cents  per  pound 
1 cent  per  pound 


3 cents  per  pound . . 

i cent  per  pound  .. 
I cent  per  pound  . . 
| cent  per  pound  . . 
14 cents  per  pound . 
1§  cents  per  pound . 

35  per  cent 

20  per  cent 

25  per  cent 


25  per  cent 

6 cents  per  pound. . 

25  per  cent 

25  per  cent 

25  per  cent 

1 cent  per  pound  . . 
1 cent  per  pound  . . 

1 cent  per  pound  .. 

2 cents  per pound. . 
14  cents  per  pound 
25  per  cent. 

25  per  oent 

1 J cents  per  pound . 
60  cents  per  -100 
pounds. 

20  per  cent 

$1  per  pound  and 
35  per  cent. 

$20  per  ton  and  15 
per  cent. 

10  per  cent 

6 cents  ner  nound  . 


2 cents  per  pound. 
14  cents  per  pound. 


1 cent  per  pound. 
1 cent  per  pound. 
1 cent  per  pound. 
4 cent  per  pound. 


$1  per  100  pounds. 


14  cents  per  pound. 


14  cents  per  pound. 
14  cents  per  pound. 

4 cents  per  pound. 


$3  per  ton. 


4 cent  per  pound. 

i cent  per  pound. 

$3  per  ton. 

75  cents  per  100 
pounds. 

| cent  per  pound. 

4 cent  per  pound. 

4 cent  per  pound. 

4 cent  per  pound. 

4 cent  per  pound. 
Free. 

75  cents  per  100 
pounds. 


10  cents  per  pound. 


$2  per  ton. 

$3  per  ton. 

; 1 cent  per  pound. 
$6  per  ton. 

4 cent  per  pound. 


.1 


196  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Articles. 


Tariff  j Tariff  Tariff 
proposed.  1846.  j 1857. 


Tariff  1869. 


Arsenic 

Barytes:  Crude,  in  lumps 

Manufactured  or  powd- 
ered. 

Carbonate,  crude 

Cadmium 

Calamine,  zinc  ore 

Brazil  wood,  and  all  woods  in 
stick,  used  for  dyeing. 

Chalk  (lumps)  ....' 


Per  ct. 
Free . . . 
Free . . - 
Free . . . 


Free 

Free 

.Free 

Free 


20  15 

20  15 

5 Free . . 


Free . . . 


4 


Asphaltum 

Cochineal 

Divi  divi,  a dye  

Drags  in  crude  state,  and  materials 
for  composing  dyes,  crude,  not 
otherwise  tmumerated. 

Plaster  Paris,  crude 

Kaolin,  crude 

Lead  ore 

Madder,  in  all  forms 

Mercury  or  quicksilver 


Free 

20 

4 

Free 

10 

4 

Free 

20 

Free.. 

Free 

20 

Free . . 

Free 

Free 

1 

Free . . 

Free . . 

Free 

Free 

5 

Free . . 

Free  — 

20 

15 

Persian  berries 

Scrap  lead 

Talc,  crude,  a mineral 

Tin,  pigs 

Lead,  pigs 

Borax,  crude 

Brimstone,  crude 

Flaxseed 

Hempseed 

Tin  crystals — 


Free 

Free 

Free 

20 

15 

Free 

5 

Free . . 

Free 

Free 

20 

15 

Free 

15 

4 

Free 

30 

24 

Free 

10 

8 

20  per  cent 

20  per  cent 

\ cent  per  pound  . 


Free 

Free 

Free 

$10  per  ton  (since 
free). 

25  per  cent 

Free 

Free 

Free 


Free 

$5  per  ton 

1J  cents  per  pound. 

Free 

15  per  cent,  (since 
free). 

Free 

1 \ cents  per  pound. 

20  per  cent 

15  per  cent 

2 cents  per  pound. 


$6  per  ton 

23  cents  per  bushel. 
\ cent  per  pound.. 


Free. 

25  cents  per  100 
pounds. 

Free. 


$3  per  ton. 
Free. 

Free. 


Free. 

Free. 

Free. 


2\  cents  per  pound. 


[W.  Y.  Byard,  oxalic  acid.] 

Sharon,  Pa.,  July  22, 1885. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular  asking  information  in  regard  to  tariff 
touches  an  industry  in  which  I am  interested.  The  manufacture  of 
oxalic  acid  has  been  confined  to  Europe  up  to  the  present  time.  For 
some  reason  it  has  never  been  classified,  and  there  being  no  duty  on  it, 
and  the  fact  that  labor  in  England  costs  little  over  half  what  it  does  in 
this  country,  makes  it  very  hard  to  compete  with  them.  Add  to  this 
the  fact  that  one  of  the  leading  articles  entering  into  its  manufacture 
here  has  to  be  imported,  and  on  which  there  is  a duty  of  20  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  and  you  will  see  that  America  has  the  disadvantage.  Nearly 
all  of  the  oxalic  acid  made  in  Europe  comes  to  America,  and  it  seems  as 
though  the  tariff  had  been  overlooked. 

In  the  face  of  this  opposition,  but  with  the  confidence  that  America 
will  stand  by  American  enterprise,  a company  has  been  formed  here  to 
put  up  works  for  the  manufacture  of  this  article.  An  attempt  was  made 
some  years  ago  to  start  works  of  this  kind,  when  one  firm  in  England 
had  the  sole  manufacture  of  oxalic  acid.  Just  as  soon  as  works  were 
ready  to  start,  this  firm  cut  the  price  down  to  or  below  cost,  and  held  it 
there  until  they  about  froze  out  the  other  company. 

Would  it  be  asking  too  much  of  you  to  give  us  an  idea  of  how  we 
should  proceed  to  get  oxalic  acid  on  the  tariff  list?  We  are  willing  to 
supply  America  at  the  price  she  is  paying  now  for  this  product.  Any 
information  from  you  would  be  gratefully  received. 

Most  truly,  yours, 

W.  V.  BYARD. 

P.  S. — The  article  we  would  have  to  import  is  carbonate  of  potash. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


197 


[The  same,  j 

. Sharon,  Pa.,  October  30,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington : 

Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  October  2,  and  also  of  the  19th,  received.  I 
have  been  waiting  for  some  information  that  I thought  necessary  to 
have.  I think  the  tariff  on  oxalic  acid  should  range  the  same  as  on 
citric  acid,  which  'would  make  it  2 cents  per  pound.  The  difference  in 
the  cost  of  labor  between  this  country  and  Europe,  and  the  duty  on 
raw  material  entering  into  its  manufacture,  would  be  equal  to  one-fifth 
the  cost  of  the  finished  product.  This  estimate  is  low\ 

There  is  about  two  and  a quarter  millions  of  pounds  of  oxalic  acid 
used  in  this  country  annually.  The  wholesale  price  is  now  from  10  to 
11  cents  per  pound  in  large  quantities,  and  the  greater  portion  of  it  is 
used  in  the  industrial  arts. 

Thanking  you  for  your  interest  in  the  matter, 

I am,  very  truly,  yours, 

W.  Y.  BYARD. 


[Cutler  Bros.  & Co.,  drugs  and  dyes.'] 

Boston,  July  31,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : In  answer  to  your  request  for  our  views  on  the  tariff,  we 
would  say  that  we  think  the  tariff  should  be  very  much  simplified, 
making  fre3  all  crude  drugs  and  dyes  used  in  manufacturing  and  the 
arts;  and  in  all  cases  where  it  is  possible  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem 
duties,  should  be  adopted,  and  the  many  petty  annoyances  and  incon- 
gruities avoided.  In  illustration,  in  the  importation  of  fine  drugs  and 
chemicals  no  less  than  three  rates  of  duty  have  to  be  calculated  often 
on  bottles  or  containers  in  the  same  invoice,  the  difference  of  duty  on 
which  would  not  pay  for  the  time  and  trouble  in  calculating.  In  some 
cases  the  same  article,  under  different  names,  bears  a different  rate  of 
duty,  and  in  many  cases  the  duty  is  so  excessive  that  the  Government 
gets  no  revenue  on  the  article,  the  duty  being  prohibitory — in  fact,  act- 
ing as  a premium  on  fraud — as  in  the  case  of  castor  oil,  which  bears  a 
duty  of  80  cents  pef  gallon  or  10  cents  per  pound,  while  East  India  oil 
is  selling  in  the  London  market  at  3 Jd.  to  4 d.  per  pound,  equal  to  6J  to  8 
cents  per  pound  there,  while  here  it  is  selling  at  17 J to  18  cents  per 
pound.  This  duty  is  ostensibly  laid  to  protect  the  producer  of  the 
castor  bean,  but  in  reality  for  the  benefit  of  the  crushers,  who,  by  com- 
bining together,  there  being  only  a few  of  them,  compel  the  grower  to 
sell  at  any  price  they  may  fix.  This  excessive  duty  has  led  unprin- 
cipled importers,  in  order  to  evade  the  duty,  to  have  it  mixed  and  to  im- 
port it  under  the  name  of  alizarine,  and  afterwards  to  separate  the  oil 
from  the  compound. 

Where  there  is  a great  variety  in  quality  and  strength  in  the  same 
article,  as  in  aqua  ammonia,  for  example,  an  ad  valorem  may  be 
necessary,  while  on  carbonate,  muriate,  and  sulphate  of  ammonia  a 
specific  duty  is,  in  our  opinion,  much  preferable. 

In  levying  a duty  we  think  all  industries  should,  as  far  as  possible, 
be  alike  protected,  giving  such  protection  only  so  far  as  is  necessary  to 


198  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


enable  them  successfully  to  compete  with  the  foreign  producer  or  man-  * 
ufacturer  of  the  same  or  similar  articles. 

The  duty  on  the  following  articles  we  think  excessive,  viz : Citric 
acid,  tartaric  acid,  morphine,  strychnine,  tannic  acid  or  tannin,  oil 
croton,  iodide  or  hydriodate  of  potash,  santonine,  and  others.  All  of 
which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

CUTLER  BROS.  & CO., 


[The  same.  ] 

Boston,  October  14,  1885. 

Hon.  D.  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : Yours  of  the  2d  instant  making  inquiries  in  reference  to 
the  tariff  came  duly  to  hand.  In  answer  to  your  first  point,  we  inclose 
a copy  of  a German  invoice  of  fine  chemicals  'from  E.  Merck,  of  Darm- 
stadt, from  which  you  will  see  that  besides  the  duties  on  the  contents 
of  the  bottles  we  are  liable  to  have  to  calculate  the  duties  on  the  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  bottles,  viz,  on  colored  glass  bottles  30  per  cent.,  on 
white  glass  bottles  40  per  cent.,  and  on  glass  stoppered  bottles  45  per 
cent.,  the  difference  of  duty  on  which,  we  think,  you  will  readily  see 
will  not  pay  for  the  time  and  trouble  in  calculating,  to  the  Government 
or  the  importer.  All  articles  which  are  free,  such  as  salacine  and 
pyrogallic  acid,  must  pay  a duty  on  the  bottle  containing  them. 

(2)  In  answer  to  your  second  inquiry  we  would  say  that  there  were 
several  articles  bearing  different  rates  of  duty  and  under  different 
names,  such  as  linseed  and  flaxseed,  tannin  and  tannic  acid,  and  others 
which  we  find  have  been  corrected. 

(3)  In  relation  to  alizarine  assistant,  we  would  only  repeat,  that  be- 
fore the  recent  ruling  it  was  imported  by  various  parties  and  the  castor 
oil  separated  from  it  by  Messrs.  Johnson  & Shaw,  manufacturing  chem- 
ists of  this  city,  the  compound  being  a mechanical  and  not  a chemical 
one;  the  duty  on  castor  bean  being  50  cents  and  on  the  oil  80  cents. 
The  bean  costs,  with  duty,  about  $2  per  bushel  and  yields  about  2 gal- 
lons of  oil,  the  duty  on  which  would  be  about  25  cents  per  gallon  on  the 
oil  made  from  the  imported  bean,  while  80  cents  per  gallon  is  charged 
on  the  expressed  oil  when  imported.  Oil  in  the  London  market,  im- 
ported from  the  East  Indies,  is  selling  there.at  from  3d.  to  3 Jd.  per  pound, 
equal  to  6 to  7 J cents,  while  with  a duty  here  of  80  cents  per  gallon,  equal 
to  10  cents  per  pound,  oil  is  selling  from  1G  to  17£  cents  per  pound.  Al- 
though this  duty  was  ostensibly  laid  to  protect  the  grower  of  the  beans 
in  this  country,  it  really  goes  to  the  crusher  of  beans,  there  being  only 
a few  of  them  who  can  combine  and  thus  control  the  price  in  this  coun- 
try. It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  price  is  kept  up  to  the  price  in  Lon- 
don with  the  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound  added. 

(4)  We  do  not  with  our  present  information  feel  competent  to  recom- 
mend what  the  exact  rates  of  duty  should  be,  but  only  to  say  that  we 
favor  a sufficient  rate  of  duty  to  enable  the  American  manufacturer  or 
producer  to  successfully  compete  with  the  foreign  production,  and  no 
more.  Articles  used  in  manufactures  and  the  arts  should  be  free,  or 
nearly  so.  We  will  here  name  a few  articles  on  which  we  think  the 
duty  excessive,  viz : Castor  oil ; we  would  suggest  10  per  cent,  on  beaus 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


199 


and  20  per  cent,  on  oil ; acid,  citric,  5 cents  instead  of  10 ; tartaric,  o 
instead  of  10;  strychnine,  25  instead  of  50;  croton  oil,  25  instead  of  50; 
iodide  potash,  25  instead  of  50;  tannic  acid  or  tannin,  50  instead  of  $1; 
chloroform,  25  instead  of  50;  carbonate  and  sulphate  of  ammonia,  10 
per  cent,  instead  of  20,  same  as  muriate  of  ammonia;  sulphate  of  cop 
per,  3 instead  of  4 ; cream  of  tartar,  5 instead  of  0 ; white  sugar  of  lead, 
5 instead  of  6;  red  prussiate  potash,  5 instead  of  10;  santonine,  $1  in- 
stead of  $3;  morphia,  and  all  salts  of,  75  instead  of  $1 ; and  sulphate 
of  quinine,  10  per  cent,  instead  of  nothing,  as  it  now  is.  All  of  which 
is  respectfully  and  deferentially  submitted. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

CUTLER  BROS.  & CO. 


[J.  Burgess  & Sons,  tooth-brushes .] 

Brooklyn,  September  1,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury , Washington , D.  <7. : 

Dear  Sir  : The  question  of  tariff  legislation,  so  far  as  it  concerns  the 
manufacture  of  tooth-brushes  in  the  United  States,  is  a question  as  to 
whether  so  important  an  article  of  manufacture,  now  made  both  in  Eng- 
land and  France,  can  be  successfully  carried  on  in  this  country  or  not.  So 
far  as  the  history  of  tooth-brushes  and  their  mode  of  manufacture  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  not  known  who  was  the  original  inventor;  but  the  brushes 
which  have  been  generally  described  as  a combination  of  bone  and  bristle 
have  been  manufactured  in  England  for  this  last  fifty  years  and  in  France 
for  this  last  twenty  years.  While  brushes  were  not  very  extensively  made 
at  first,  they  have  now  grown  to  be  an  article  of  extensive  manufacture — 
to  such  an  extent  as  to  employ  some  thousands  of  both  male  and  female 
, labor,  and  are  used  by  the  greater  part  of  the  English-speaking  persons; 
and  the  United  States,  with  its  increasing  population,  having  been  con- 
ceded years  ago  to  be  the  principal  market  for  the  sale  of  tooth-brushes, 
has  now  grown  to  be  the  market  for  fully  two-thirds  of  the  brushes  now 
made.  Now,  about  fifteen  years  ago,  we  came  to  this  country  for  the 
purpose  of  manufacturing  in  the  United  States,  after  being  makers  in 
England,  knowing  at  the  same  time  that  vast  numbers  of  brushes  were 
sent  here,  and  bringing  the  tools  and  machinery  and  also  some  of  the 
male  and  female  labor,  so  as  to  produce  brushes  of  the  same  style  of  goods 
as  made  by  us  in  England,  that  is  of  the  very  best  workmanship  ; but 
we  had  no  sooner  got  to  work,  that  is  got  our  machinery  regulated,  and 
having  prepared  samples  of  the  same  style  and  kind  as  manufactured 
by  us  and  others  in  England,  and  submitted  the  samples  to  the  leading- 
wholesale  druggists  and  dry  goods  trade  importers,  when  we  were  de- 
liberately informed  by  them  that  they  would  not  encourage  us  under  any 
circumstances  whatever,  and  that  they  were  opposed  to  the  manufact- 
ure and  sale  of  American-made  tooth-brushes  in  the  United  States; 
that  is  to  say,  that  we  found  that  the  principal  wholesale  dealers  in  tooth- 
brushes did  then,  and  do  now,  all  they  can  to  stop  the  manufacture  aud 
sale  of  American-made  tooth  brushes,  their  principal  efforts  being  direct- 
ed to  evade  the  payment  of  what  used  to  be  40  per  cent,  ad  volorem  to 
30  percent,  that  is  now,  which  was  reduced  by  the  last  tariff  law.  So 
that  what  with  determination  of  the  importers  to  discourage  the  manufac- 


200  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

ture  and  the  enormous  evasion  of  duty,  it  is  impossible  to  manufacture 
successfully  tooth-brushes  in  this  country. 

Now,  in  reference  to  the  collection  of  the  duty  on  tooth-brushes,  we 
call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  French  are  buying  the  bone  in 
this  country  and  sending  it  to  France,  making  it  into  tooth-brushes, 
and  bringing  them  back  cheaper  than  they  could  be  made  here. 

The  bones  that  are  used  in  the  making  of  tooth-brushes  are  the  leg  or 
thigh  bones  of  beeves  or  oxen.  They  are  collected  up  by  the  bone- 
dealers,  soaked  in  water  for  three  weeks,  then  boiled  for  about  twenty 
minutes,  or  just  long  enough  to  get  the  marrow  out,  and  are  then  ready 
for  the  brush-makers’  use.  They  are  then  cut  up  into  strips  and  sorted 
for  the  grade  and  kind  that  they  are  intended  for. 

Now,  it  is  here  that  the  question  of  quality  comes  in,  because  it  is 
found  that  after  sorting  the  strips  some  of  them  are  not  so  long,  or 
so  thick,  or  so  clear,  or  bent,  or  thin,  so  that  they  become  of  various 
kinds  of  values  before  manufacture ; so  that  unless  a man  is  an  expert 
he  does  not  know  the  value  of  the  bone  that  the  brushes  are  made 
of ; and  the  bristle  that  is  used  is  taken  from  the  pigs  or  hogs ; also  hair 
from  the  goat  or  badger,  and  after  undergoing  a curing  and  bleaching 
process  is  then  sorted  into  the  various  kinds,  sizes,  and  thicknesses,  so  as 
to  become  of  the  value  of  plentiful  or  low-priced  to  the  scarce  or  high- 
priced  kinds ; so  that  before  a man  could  tell  what  the  real  value  of  a 
tooth  brush  costs  to  manufacture  he  must  be  acquainted  with  the  value 
of  the  bone  and  the  bristle  or  hair  that  the  brush  contains. 

For  instance,  it  makes  a great  deal  of  difference  whether  the  brush 
is  made  of  a common  piece  of  bone  and  high-priced  bristle  or  hair  to  a 
high  priced  bristle  and  high-priced  bone,  or  there  can  be  a very  slight 
mixture  of  bristle  or  a slight  degree  in  the  quality  of  the  bone,  so  that 
a little  difference  either  way  has  a great  deal  to  do  with  the  quality 
and  cost  of  the  brush  ; or,  again,  if  anything  is  added  to  the  brush,  that 
is,  whether  it  is  inlaid  with  pearl,  or  drawn  with  copper  or  silver  wire,  or 
cotton  thread,  or  how  stamped  or  branded,  how  packed,  which  is  a very 
important  thing  to  know,  from  the  fact  that  while  they  are  generally 
packed  one  dozen  in  a box  they  are  of  different  values,  so  that  it  becomes 
an  easy  matter  to  undervalue  tooth-brushes. 

So  that  the  greatest  mistake  of  tariff  legislation  has  been  that  it  has 
been  in  the  interest  of  the  importers  and  against  the  American  manu- 
facturers ; that  is  to  say,  that  owing  to  the  difficult  way  in  getting  at  the 
real  ad  valorem  duty  in  appraising  brushes,  and  the  fact  that  no  one 
outside  of  the  maker  can  tell  what  the  values  are;  and  if  tariff  duty  is 
to  be  imposed  for  the  protection  of  the  American  manufactures,  it  can 
only  be  done  by  altering  the  manner  of  collecting  the  duty  from  an  ad 
valorem,  so  that  anybody  could  appraise  tooth-brushes,  providing, 
that  is  to  say,  so  much  duty  on  every  dozen  of  tooth-brushes.  Our  ex- 
perience of  manufacturers  in  this  country  enables  us  to  form  a basis  of 
what  the  tariff  duty  should  be;  and  in  order  that  it  would  be  equitable 
to  American  makers  we  advocate  a specific  duty  of  50  cents  per  dozen, 
providing  that  there  is  not  used  in  the  making  anything  more  than  bone 
and  hair  or  bristle.  At  this  rate  it  would  not  be  of  any  particular  ad- 
vantage to  the  American  manufacturer,  but  would  enable  him  to  start 
out  on  an  equal  basis  of  trade,  from  the  fact  that  the  difference  in  the 
cost  of  manufacture  in  England  and  France,  that  is  what  the  labor 
can  be  got  for — from  the  fact  that  the  labor  can  be  got  at  one-half 
for  what  it  can  be  got  in  this  country,  notwithstanding  that  female 
labor  at  that  rate  cannot  earn  any  more  than  is  really  necessary  for 
barely  living  expenses.  To  show  you  the  advantage  that  the  English 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


201 


makers  (and  the  French  have  a greater  one)  have  in  the  cost  of  mak- 
ing, in  the  first  place,  a man  working  at  the  trade — that  is,  the  part  of 
making  the  handles  and  drilling  the  holes — does  not  earn  any  more  than 
from  $5  to  $7  per  week  $ or  in  other  words,  the  making  of  the  handles 
is  done  by  piece-work,  which,  at  the  basis  of  payment,  would  amount 
to  the  sum  stated,  and  the  female  labor — that  is,  for  the  placing  the 
bristle  in  the  handles  and  finishing — they  can  be  got  to  work  for  from  5 
to  10  shillings  per  week,  English  money,  which  at  that  rate  out  in  this 
country  girls  cannot  be  got  for,  from  the  fact  that  we  find  that  the  low- 
est that  female  labor  can  be  obtained  for  is  $3  per  week,  and  at  that 
rate  only  very  young  girls  can  be  employed.  Our  purpose  of  showing 
these  figures  is  to  show  that  the  English  and  French  makers  have  a de- 
cided advantage  in  the  cost  of  makiug.  In  writing  this  statement  it 
must  be  distinctly  understood  that  there  is  an  entire  absence  of  any 
government  statements  as  to  the  total  numbers  of  tooth-brushes  there 
is  imported  and  the  total  amount  of  duty  collected ; but  if  it  could  be 
collected,  that  is  both  figures,  it  would  be  easily  demonstrated  that  the 
United  States  is  being  cheated  by  the  importers  to  such  an  extent  that 
it  would  pay  the  Treasury  to  have  an  investigation  in  the  matter,  when 
it  could  be  shown  that  so  far  as  the  Treasury  trying  to  collect  the  ad 
valorem  on  tooth-brushes,  it  is  a complete  failure ; or,  in  other  words, 
when  the  total  numbers  of  tooth-brushes  imported  is  known  it  would 
be  found  that  the  amount  collected  represents  but  a very  small  sum  of 
their  real  value.  Now  if  the  duty  is  made  specific,  and  -a  different  sum 
placed  on  numbers  instead  of  ad  valorem,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
cheat  as  to  quality,  and  it  would  simplify  the  tariff  so  that  so  many 
tooth-brushes  would  amount  to  so  much,  regardless  of  what  the  English 
or  French  stated  they  sold  them  for,  and  it  would  not  require  an  expert 
to  appraise  the  different  qualities ; and  so  long  as  the  United  States  ap- 
praisers depend  on  the  statement  of  the  foreign  makers  to  find  out  the 
real  value,  and  as  they  are  interested  in  the  effort  to  get  the  brushes 
into  this  country  as  cheap  as  possible,  they  make  it  their  business  to 
place  the  cost  of  making  down  lower  than  they  can  be  made  for.  . There 
is  also  another  view  of  the  matter.  Much  of  the  hair  and  bristle  that  are 
used  in  the  making  of  brushes  come  from  abroad  and  are  subject  to  tariff, 
which  the  American  maker  must  pay ; that  is,  he  has  to  pay  a duty  on 
the  material  he  uses,  and  which  reduces  somewhat  the  amount  of  benefit 
that  he  would  be  entitled  to  if  the  tariff  was  better  regulated. 

So  that  in  our  experience,  which  covers  the  manufacturing  of  tooth- 
brushes in  the  United  States  for  a number  of  years,  and  also  being 
acquainted  with  all  the  methods  of  manufacturing  in  England,  we 
would  decide  that  the  most  suitable  and  simple  manner  of  collecting 
the  duty  on  tooth-brushes  would  be  by  a specific  duty,  where  we 
know  it  to  be  so  easy  to  misrepresent  the  value  of  the  brushes. 

We  also  advocate  a distinction  being  made  in  regard  to  tooth-brushes. 
At  present  the  tariff  reads  u brushes  of  all  kinds  that  is  to  say,  that 
no  difference  is  made  between  a calcimine-brush  and  a tooth-brush, 
which  is  very  wrong,  from  the  fact  that  they  are  entirely  different,  both 
in  regard  to  material  and  make.  Tooth-brushes  is  a separate  trade  of 
itself.  We  also  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  brushes  are  being  sent 
out  in  an  unfinished  state,  so  as  to  evade  the  payment  of  the  ad  va- 
lorem duty  to  the  extent  of  large  quantities.  We  also  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  if  the  tariff  could  be  so  regulated  as  to  enable  the 
American  maker  to  state  that  he  would  have  a fair  show  of  compe- 
tition with  the  foreign  makers,  we  have  the  assurance  of  a large 
number  of  the  work  people,  both  in  England  and  France,  that  they 


202  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


would  come  out  if  a moderate  rate  of  wages  could  be  paid  them;  but  so 
long  as  the  tariff  remains  as  it  is,  it  is  impossible  to  manufacture  in 
successful  competition,  and  all  we  ask  is,  that  all  the  advantage  shall 
not  be  on  the  side  of  the  foreign  makers ; that  the  subject  of  tooth- 
brushes is  worthy  of  investigation  is  in  the  fact  that  the  trade  of  tooth- 
brush makers  amounts  to  millions  of  dollars ; and  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  but  if  the  trade  could  be  done  in  the  United  States  successfully, 
we  believe  that  the  entire  bulk  of  trade  would  be  done  here,  from  the 
fact  that  the  bone  and  bristle  could  be  got  to  suit  if  there  was  any  de- 
mand for  them. 

The  mode  of  making  a tooth-brush  may  be  described  as  follows  : After 
the  thigh-bones  of  the  ox  or  cow  are  collected  from  the  butchers  they 
are  placed  in  soak  for  a month,  then  boiled ; then  they  are  purchased 
by  the  brush-makers,  who  saw  them  in  strips ; then  they  are  planed 
and  shaped  by  a machine ; they  are  then  taken  by  men  and  shaped 
with  files  into  the  shape  required ; they  are  then  polished,  drilled,  and 
drawn  with  hair  or  bristle,  and  then  repolished  and  stamped  with  what- 
ever party’s  name  required,  but  the  process  requires  a man  to  have  had 
a few  years’  experience  before  being  able  to  make  brushes.  So  far  as 
our  being  able  to  explain  in  writing  the  methods  of  brush-making,  we 
would  state  that  it  requires  a man  to  have  a complete  knowledge  of  the 
values  of  the  material  if  he  wants  to  find  out  what  the  brush  is  worth, 
and  we  are  under  the  impression  that  if  an  opportunity  was  given  to 
one  of  the  brush-makers  to  explain  to  the  Treasury  officials,  the  trader 
would  receive  a better  show  of  gettiug  along  than  at  present. 

In  conclusion,  please  allow  us  to  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  of  re- 
plying to  your  circular,  and  in  answer  would  recommend  the  law  altered 
as  follows : 

Tooth-brushes : Manufactured  from  either  bone,  ivory,  wood,  or 
ebony,  and  drawn  with  either  hair  or  bristle,  3 rows,  per  dozen,  35  cents ; 
4 rows,  per  dozen,  50  cents  ; 5 rows,  per  dozen,  65  cents. 

Again  allow  us  to  thank  you  for  any  attention  in  the  matter,  and 
permit  us  to  state  that  we  should  be  pleased  to  give  any  further  infor- 
mation that  may  be  required. 

Respectfully,  &c., 

J.  BURGESS  & SONS. 


^ [The  same.] 

D.  Manning,  Esq., 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , J).  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Yours  of  the  2d  instaut  to  hand  and  contents  noted,  with 
thanks  for  acknowledging  receipt  of  same. 

In  answer  to  your  inquiries  in  regard  to  the  cost  of  the  materials  used 
in  the  manufacture  of  tooth-brushes  we  would  state  that  the  first  item 
of  cost  is  the  thigh-bone  of  the  bullock,  which  costs  on  the  average 
$80  per  1,000,  or  8 cents  each.  This  bone  is  cut  into  five  strips  at  the 
cost  of  60  cents  per  gross.  This  is  what  we  pay  the  man  to  cut  them. 
The  pieces  are  then  what  we  call  fashioned,  or,  in  other  words,  they  are 
taken  and  made  into  whatever  shape  that  is  required,  which  cost,  at  the 
rate  of  35  cents  per  dozen,  or  $4.20  per  gross.  The  handles  being  ready 
for  drilling  or  boring,  the  holes,  which  cost  $1.68  per  gross,  are  then 
ready  to  be  drawn,  that  is  to  have  the  bristle  placed  in  them,  which 
for  a best  brush  costs  $4.50  per  gross  ; that  is  like  sample  marked  No. 
1.  The  bristle  is  then  drawn  in  by  girls,  who  are  paid  at  the  rate  of  25 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


203 


cents  per  dozen,  or  $3  per  gross.  The  work  of  finishing  the  brush,  that 
is,  fastening  the  wire,  cementing  the  backs,  repolishing  the  backs,  and 
stamping,  costs  $2.50  per  gross.  We  then  reckon  that  it  costs  $1  per 
gross  for  incidental  expenses,  which  include  turpentine,  wire,  wax,  dies, 
boxes,  chalk,  whitening,  &c.  We  would  state  that  the  trade  has  but  few 
qualities  of  bone;  the  difference  lies  in  the  quality  of  the  bristle.  We 
also  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  bristle  used  is,  for  the  most 
part,  imported  from  France  and  Kussia,  and  that  there  is  a duty  of  15 
cents  per  pound,  so  that  while  the  duty  on  tooth  brushes  is  30  per  cent, 
we  have  to  pay  a duty  on  the  bristle. 

Below  please  find  cost  of  making  a first  quality  tooth-brush,  per  gross: 


Cost  of  bone $3  00 

Cost  of  making  handles 4 20 

Cost  of  drilling  the  holes 1 68 

Cost  of  bristle 4 50 

Cost  of  drawing 3 00 

Cost  of  finishing 2 50 

Cost  of  incidental  expenses 1 00 


19  88 


This  brush  we  are  prepared  to  sell  at  $20  per  gross. 

The  price  of  making  a tooth-brush  in  England  is  done  by  piecework, 
the  same  as  here,  the  difference  being  as  follows,  per  gross  : 

*•  s.  d 


Cost  of  bone 9 0 

Cost  number  1,  of  making  handles. : 9 0 

Cost  of  drilling  holes 2 6 

Cost  number  2,  of  bristle 6 0 

Cost  number  3,  of  drawing 5 0 

Cost  number  4,  of  finishing 2 6 

Cost  number  5,  of  incidentals. 3 0 


£1  17  0 

Number  1,  cost  of  making  the  handles  about  25  per  cent.  less. 
Number  2,  cost  of  bristle,  they  have  no  duty  on  bristle. 

Number  3,  female  labor  nearly  one-half. 

Number  4,  done  by  boys  and  girls. 

Number  5,  females  at  the  rate  of  6s.  per  week,  and  chalk  and  whiten- 
ing of  small  value. 

We  thank  you  for  your  action  in  the  matter  and  believe  your  action 
would  be  concurred  in  by  a vast  number  of  American  manufacturers. 
Respectfully,  &c., 

J.  BURGESS  & SONS, 

Note. — Samples  will  be  transmitted  separately  to  Congress. 


[Canby,  Gilpin  & Co.,  tooth-brushes.'] 

Baltimore,  August  17,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury: 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  July  24,  we  would  re- 
spectfully reply  that  our  importations  are  limited  in  number  of  the 
articles,  and  quite  a number  are  on  the  free  list,  and  we  do  not  know 
that  we  have  suffered  from  evasions  of  tariff  • but  we  can  readily  see 


204  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


how  impossible  it  is  for  an  honest  importer  to  compete  with  ad  valorem 
duty,  and  we  feel  sure  that  specific  duty  of  so  much  per  pound  or  so 
much  per  gallon  would  be  preferable  and  would  put  all  on  same  footing. 
There  is,  it  appears,  a difficulty  in  the  way  of  that  in  some  of  our  goods, 
as  in  case  we  will  say  of  tooth-brushes  imported  from  England  and 
France.  A brush  costing  30  cents  per  dozen  and  one  costing  $2  per 
dozen,  or  $3  per  dozen,  which  is  about  the  extreme:  40  per  cent,  on  the 
30-cent  brush,  12  cents ; 40  per  cent,  on  the  $3  brush,  $1.20  ad  valorem. 

Specific. — We  would  say  50  cents  per  dozen  duty  on  each  and  every 
dozen  tooth-brushes  would  make  the  30-ceut  brush  cost  80  cents  instead 
of  42  cents,  and  the  $3  brush  cost  $3.50  instead  of  $4.20,  and  if  you  ad- 
just it  to  the  cost  of  the  brush  you  have  the  same  difficulty  of  under- 
value. It  really  seems  a difficult  problem. 

We  will  take  olive  oil  that  costs  $2  per  gallon,  and  oil  made  from 
olives  that  costs  60  cents ; 25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  would  add  50  cents  to 
the  one  and  15  cents  to  the  other;  while,  if  specific,  at  say  40  cents  per 
gallon,  it  would  make  the  cheaper  oil  cost  very  dear,  say  80  cents,  and 
the  higher  grade  $2.40.  That  would  not  be  so  much  out  of  the  way;  but 
articles  varying  so  much  in  price  the  difference  would  be  very  great. 
We  would  be  most  pleased  to  give  advice  that  would  simplify  and  make 
the  tariff  more  equitable,  as  it  surely  needs  revision. 

Yours,  cordially, 

CANBY,  GILPIN  & CO. 


[John  L.  Whiting  & Son,  brushes  and  bristles .] 

Boston,  December  1;  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : As  the  largest  manufacturers  of  brushes  in  the  United 
States,  we  should  regret  very  much  to  have  the  matter  of  tariff  changes 
agitated  this  winter,  as  it  would  have  a bad  effect  on  our  business. 
We  are  led  to  think  this,  as  on  previous  years  when  the  tariff  question 
has  been  agitated  our  business  has  suffered,  and  believe  same  result 
would  attend  it  again. 

To  change  the  duties  on  brushes  from  the  present  ad  valorem  system 
to  specific  we  think  woul£  be  impracticable,  on  account  of  the  great 
difference  in  value  of  some  kinds  of  brushes  from  same  weight  of  other 
kinds. 

Brushes  are  manufactured  here  having  a value  of  50  cents  a pound, 
and  perhaps  less  sometimes.  They  are  imported  having  values  ranging 
from  as  low  as  $1  a pound  to  $120  for  same  weight,  and  they  are  made 
here  also  having  equally  high  value. 

We  see  no  way  by  which  brushes  can  be  brought  to  this  country  with- 
out injury  to  American  brush  manufacturers  than  the  present  system 
of  ad  valorem  duties. 

The  manufacture  of  toilet  brushes,  such  as  hair,  cloth,  tooth,  &c., 
was  virtually  killed  in  this  country  by  last  (1883)  change  in  tariff,  from 
a duty  of  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem  to  30  per  cent.,  present  rate.  All 
brushes  in  which  labor  is  the  principal  item  of  cost  was  similarly  af- 
fected. A striking  example  is  shown  in  the  village  of  Lansingburg,  N. 
Y.,  which  had  before  the  change  in  the  tariff  many  successful  manu- 
facturers of  brushes,  while  now  the  industry  is  practically  dead  at  that 
place. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


205 


The  business  of  brush  manufacturers  in  this  country  can  be  assisted 
by  taking  off  the  duty  from  bristles,  which  is  at  present  15  cents  per 
pound,  and  leaving  duty  on  brushes  same  as  it  now  is.  This  would  put 
the  business  about  as  it  was  before  last  change  on  brushes,  but  to  re- 
duce duty  oh  brushes  or  change  to  another  system  of  levying  would  be 
a great  injury  to  it. 

Asking  your  kind  attention,  we  are, 

Yours,  truly, 

JOHN  L.  WHITING  & SON. 


[Parke,  Davis  & Company,  Japanese  menthol .] 

Detroit,  October  31,  1885. 

if  on.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : Referring  to  your  circular  of  July  25,  asking  for  information 
which  may  be  of  assistance  to  Congress  in  fiscal  legislation,  &c.,  we  beg  to 
state  in  reply,  that  though  we  are  importing  during  the  year  many  thou- 
sands of  dollars’  worth  of  goods  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  the  bulk  of 
these  goods  represents  general  crude  materials  which  are  not  subject 
to  any  duty  whatever.  We  can  therefore  give  but  little  information 
on  the  subject  of  changing  certain  duties  from  an  ad  valorem  to  a specific 
basis.  There  are,  therefore,  but  a few  dutiable  articles  in  which  we  are 
interested. 

Foremost  among  these  is  probably  the  Japanese  menthol.  This  arti- 
cle is  at  present  subject  to  a duty  of  25  per  cent.,  and  as  prices  lately 
have  varied  very  much  and  are  still  unfixed,  we  and  no  doubt  other 
houses  are  in  constant  uncertainty  about  having  invoices  passed  through 
the  custom-house,  the  appraisers  at  times  considering  the  low,  though 
market,  prices  for  Japanese  menthol  an  undervaluation.  To  make 
matters  more  clear,  we  beg  to  state  that  we  have  purchased  Japanese 
menthol  at  Yokohama  at  prices  varying  from  50  to  100  per  cent.,  paying 
as  high  as  $10  Mexican  F.  O.  B.  Yokohama,  and  at  the  present  time 
buying  at  $5.50  Mexican  F.  O.  B.  Yokohama,  and  having  the  assurance 
from  our  correspondent  that  menthol  will  still  further  recede  in  price. 
It  is  therefore  natural  that  the  appraiser  should  look  with  suspicion 
on  an  invoice  that  is  priced  about  50  per  cent,  below  the  invoice  pre- 
viously passed  through  the  custom-house,  or^in  finding  that  not  very 
many  months  ago  the  article  was  sold  100  per  cent,  higher  than  at  the 
present  time. 

Another  method  has  been  practiced  by  the  shippers  of  Japanese 
menthol  from  Yokohama.  According  to  their  statements  on  oath  at  the 
custom-house  in  Yokohama,  which  are  attached  to  the  invoices,  they  have 
only  to  swear  to  the  effect  that  their  invoices  are  correct  with  reference 
to  the  cost  prices  of  menthol.  For  instance,  when  we  paid  seven  and  eight 
dollars  for  menthol  free  on  board  Yokohama,  they  have  invoiced  the 
article  at  $4,  with  the  understanding  no  doubt  that  the  parties  receiv- 
ing the  menthol  should  pass  it  in  on  a low  valuation,  sell  it  at  the  best 
possible  price,  and  divide  profits  with  them.  We  know  of  one  case  in 
which  menthol  in  New  York  was  passed  on  this  basis  of  $4,  but  the 
appraiser  finding  out  the  method  practiced,  fined  the  party  in  question 
and  made  him  pay  duty  oil  the  market  value  of  the  article  under  ap- 
praisement. To  leave  the  appraising  of  a product  like  menthol,  which 
is  perhaps  but  little  known  to  the  appraiser,  and  which  varies  greatly 


206  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

in  quality,  and  consequently  in  price,  is  no  doubt  a difficult  matter,  but 
it  is  apt  to  work  either  to  the  disadvantage  of  those  parties  who  make 
bona  hde  purchases,  and  pass  the  menthol  on  a bona  fide  basis,  or  to 
the  disadvantage  of  the  party  passing  menthol  under  appraisement. 

In  establishing  a market  price  for  menthol  by  which  to  pass  the  same 
through  the  custom-house,  the  quality  should  also  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration. As  we  stated  above,  this  quality  varies  very  much,  and  the 
appraiser  should  be  fully  familiar  with  all  these  intracacies  if  he  is  called 
upon  to  establish  a market  price  for  this  article  on  his  own  investiga- 
tion. The  firm  shipping  menthol  might  therefore  put  iu  one  box  a few 
tins  of  an  inferior  article  and  other  tins  of  a superior  article,  and  still 
bill  at  a price  either  for  the  inferior  lot,  or  average  prices  in  harmony 
with  the  quantity  of  either  lot  sent. 

You  will  readily  see  that  this  state  of  affairs  is  a very  unsatisfactory  one, 
and  we  would  therefore  respectfully  suggest  that  the  duty  upon  this  ar- 
ticle in  which  we  are  interested  be  placed  upon  a specific  basis.  What 
the  specific  basis  should  be  is  of  course  difficult  for  us  to  state.  Japan- 
ese menthol  is  made  from  a plant  different  from  our  American  pepper- 
mint. The  Japanese  plant  is  not  cultivated  here,  and  the  Japanese  article 
has  therefore  no  competition  in  this  country  except  it  be  in  the  Ameri- 
can pipmenthol,  so  called,  this  product  having  received  a name  differ- 
ent from  the  Japanese  menthol.  The  designation  “pip”  being  placed 
before  menthol  indicates  that  it  is  a product  derived  from  a different 
plant,  and  a special  demand  has  been  created  or  will  have  to  be  created 
for  this  product. 

As  we  understand  from  the  reports  which  we  have  received  from 
Japan,  the  price  for  menthol  of  the  new  crop  of  prime  quality  in  the  near 
future  will  probably  be  $5  or  less  Mexican  f.  o.  b.  Yokohama,  which 
would  be  approximately  equal  to  $4  United  States  gold.  Upon  this 
basis  therefore  a specific  duty  of  $1  per  pound  might  be  indicated.  As, 
however,  there  is  a large  and  rapidly  increasing  demand  for  menthol, 
native  growers  in  Japan  have  been  greatly  stimulated  to  increase  their 
crops,  and  it  is  possible  and  even  likely  that  the  price  will  recede  to 
that  figure  which  ruled  in  the  early  days  of  the  introduction  of  menthol, 
when  there  was  no  demand  therefor,  and  that  the  price  will  go  down  to 
$2.75  Mexican  f.  o.  b.,  at  which  we  bought  the  article  in  the  month  of 
November,  1883. . 

A compromise  might  therefore  perhaps  be  made  between  the  specific 
$1  per  pound  duty  and  the  duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  the  decis- 
ion of  which  is  of  course  in  the  hands  of  the  Tariff  Commission.  We 
do  not  think  that  we  can  go  farther  into  the  details  of  this  matter. 

Another  article  in  which  we  are  interested,  though  to  a less  extent, 
is  the  oil  of  bay.  We  have  attempted  to  import  this  article,  but  the  ^ 
present  duty  of  $2.50  per  pound  is  simply  prohibitory.  While  there  is 
no  difficulty  in  obtaining  oils  of  bay  manufactured  in  this  country  from 
dry  leaves,  our  home  distillers  cannot  produce  so  delicate  an  oil  as  one 
which  is  prepared  from  the  fresh  green  leaves  distilled  in  a country 
where  the  plant  grows.  It  is  therefore  decidedly  desirable  that  import- 
ers iu  this  country  should  have  access  to  the  superior  product.  As  con- 
sumers or  would-be  consumers  of  this  superior  oil  of  bay  we  may  there- 
fore consider  ourselves  sufferers  from  this  condition  of  affairs,  and  we 
would  therefore  suggest  that  this  article  be  taken  into  consideration  for 
a lower  tariff  when  the  new  tariff  is  prepared.  Not  only  are  we  as  con- 
sumers sufferers  because  of  this  abnormal  rate  of  duty,  but  the  Gov- 
ernment itself  receives  no  income  whatever  from  this  article,  as  the  high 
rate  of  duty  makes  it  prohibitory. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


207 


A few  other  articles  suggest  themselves  to  us,  inasmuch  as  they  come 
under  the  head  of  crude  drugs — namely,  medicinal  seeds,  with  special 
reference  to  celery  and  parsley  seeds.  Under  present  rulings  in  the 
custom-house  department,  these  seeds  are  classed  as  garden  seeds,  and 
are  therefore  subject  to  a duty  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  whereas  the 
proportion  of  these  seeds  used  for  planting  is  so  exceedingly  small  when 
compared  with  the  quantity  used  for  medicinal  purposes  as  to  deserve 
no  consideration  whatever  as  a source  of  income  to  the  Government. 
We  would  therefore  respectfully  suggest  that  they  be  classified  as  crude 
drugs  and  be  free  from  duty. 

The  above  comprises  about  all  the  articles  on  which  we  can  offer  any 
suggestions,  and  placing  these  matters  respectfully  before  you  for  your 
consideration,  we  have  the  honor  to  remain, 

Very  truly,  yours,  * 


PARKE,  DAVIS  & CO., 


[Tlie  Michigan  Carbon  Works.] 

Detroit,  October  24, 1885. 
Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Your  circular  letter  dated  October  3,  in  regard  to  tariff, 
to  hand,  and  we  write  you  quite  fully  on  the  matter  of  bone  black  or 
animal  charcoal,  in  which  manufacture  we  have  been  engaged  for  twelve 
years,  and  I think  I have  covered  most  of  the  questions  that  you  ask. 
There  is  no  question  but  a specific  duty  on  this  article  would  be  to  the 
advantage  of  both  the  manufacturers  and  the  Government. 

Carbonate  of  ammonia:  We  have  been  engaged  in  the  manufacture 
of  this  article  about  six  months. 

Muriate  of  ammonia:  We  are  just  commencing  this  manufacture. 

Sulphate  of  potash  (high  grade) : We  are  just  commencing  this  man- 
ufacture. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

Michigan  Carbon  Works, 

DEMING  JARVIS, 

President . 


BONE  BLACK  OR  ANIMAL  CHARCOAL. 

The  present  price  is  3J  cents  per  pound,  and  a good  article  of  foreign 
black  can  be  landed  in  bond  at  2f  cents  per  pound.  If  the  duty  was 
taken  off,  it  would  at  once  close  every  factory  in  the  country,  without 
any  effect  on  the  value  of  sugar  to  the  consumer,  as  the  saving  to  sugar 
refiners  would  be  about  2J  cents  on  a barrel  of  sugar. 

There  are  twenty-two  establishments  in  the  United  States  at  present  en- 
gagedin  making  bone  black,  with  an  invested  capital  of  about  $2,000,000, 
and  a producing  capacity  of  about  $4,000,000  worth  of  the  article,  and 
employing  about  1,200  hands,  whose  wages  average  50  per  cent,  higher 
than  in  Europe. 

During  the  last  five  years  no  new  manufactories  have  been  started, 
and  seven  have  failed  or  gone  out  of  the  business,  and  to-day  there  are 
five  factories  in  the  country  that  are  not  running. 

The  collection  of  raw  stock  (bones)  is  a slow  and  difficult  matter  in 
this  country,  asf  labor  will  not  engage  in  it  without  being  paid  much 


208  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

higher  than  in  foreign  countries.  In  Europe,  where  a large  amount  of 
beet  sugar  is  made,  a coarse-grain  black  is  used  to  clarify  it,  which 
leaves  a large  amount  of  fine  grain  or  siftings,  for  which  there  is  not 
sufficient  demand  in  European  market.  This  being  the  size  used  in  the 
United  States,  it  is  shipped  over  here  and  sold  for  what  it  will  bring. 

While  the  manufacturers  here  have  no  demand  for  the  coarse-grain 
black,  and  are  compelled  to  grind  that  large  portion  of  their  product 
down  to  the  size  wanted,  which  grinding  process  makes  a large  amount 
of  dust,  which  dust  can  only  be  sold  at  a very  low  price  to  be  used  in 
the  manufacture  of  fertilizers. 

There  has  been  a number  of  cases  in  the  last  three  years  of  bone 
black  imported  and  entered  as  waste  black,,  burnt  bone,  ash  of  bone, 
and  black  of  bone,  by  which  the  duties  have  been  evaded,  and  have 
passed  through  the  custom-house  as  materials  to  manufacture  fertilizers, 
and  afterwards  have  been  sold  to  sugar  refiners  for  refining  sugar. 

While  I do  not  ask  for  any  increase  in  the  duty,  I most  respectfully 
urge  that  the  duty  be  not  lowered,  but  would  suggest  a specific  duty  of 
three-quarters  of  one  cent  per  pound  on  all  kinds  of  bone  black  or  ani- 
mal charco  >1  for  refining  purposes,  as  being  more  easily  collected,  and 
wholly  preventing  undervaluation  or  evasion  of  the  duty. 

CARBONATE  OF  AMMONIA. 

Up  to  a late  period  all  used  in  this  country  was  imported  and  the 
price  ruled  about  20  cents  per  pound.  There  is  now  one  other  factory 
besides  ours,  located  in  New  York,  and  the  effect  of  these  two  factories 
going  into  operation  has  been  to  lower  the  price  to  about  11  cents  per 
pound. 

It  requires  a high  grade  of  skilled  and  intelligent  labor  and  the  wages 
paid  here  are  more  than  double  those  paid  in  Europe.  One  house  in 
London  has  practically  had  the  monopoly  of  the  American  market  until 
the  manufacture  was  commenced  here,  and  has  now  put  the  price  down 
and  is  trying  to  drive  these  factories  out  of  the  business,  and  (I  have 
been  credibly  informed)  has  said  they  would  accomplish  it  if  it  cost 
them  £50,000.  This  house  does  its  business  in  this  country  through  an 
agent  whose  only  interest  in  the  goods  is  a commission  for  selling,  the 
profit  and  losses  being  assumed  by  the  English  house. 

The  present  duty  is  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  I think  it  would  be 
much  more  to  the  interest  of  the  Government  and  manufacturers  here 
to  have  this  changed  to  a specific  duty  of  4 cents  per  pound. 

MURIATE  OF  AMMONIA  OR  SAL  AMMONIAC. 

This  business  up  to  the  present  has  been  entirely  in  foreign  hands,  all 
of  it  being  imported.  We  are  now  building  a large  factory  for  its  manu- 
facture, and  by  January  1 will  be  in  active  operation.  Our  competitors 
are  English  manufacturers  represented  by  their  agents  here,  who  have 
no  interest  in  this  business  except  a commission,  and  put  the  price  up 
or  down  as  directed  by  the  English  house. 

The  present  duty  is  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  subject  to  objections 
from  undervaluation.  We  recommend  a specific  duty  of  2J  cents  per 
pound.  The  wages  paid  in  this  manufacture  are  about  double  those  paid 
in  Europe. 

SULPHATE  OF  POTASH  OF  HIGH  GRADE. 

At  present  there  is  none  manufactured  in  this  country,  but  we  are 
erecting  a factory  to  manufacture  it.  At  present  all  goods  of  this  grade 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


209 


are  imported,  and  we  are  the  first  people  to  attempt  its  manufacture  in 
this  country.  The  present  duty  is : Sulphate  of  potash  below  48  per 
cent.,  free;  sulphate  of  potash  above  48  per  cent.,  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

We  recommend  that  the  low  grade,  below  48  per  cent.,  be  admitted 
free,  and  that  the  duty  on  high  grade  be  changed  to  a specific  one  of 
one-half  cent  per  pound. 

Our  competitors  are  German  manufacturers,  represented  by  their 
agents  here,  who  have  no  interest  in  the  business  except  a commission, 
and  the  price  is  put  up  and  down  as  the  market  will  stand  it. 


[Codman  & Hall,  castile  soap , olive  oil.] 

Boston,  September  8,  1885. 
The  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir  : We  have  seen  a circular  letter  from  the  Treasury  Department 
referring  to  ad  valorem  and  specific  duties,  and  as  we  are  interested  in 
the  matter  we  beg  to  submit  the  following : 

We  believe  in  having  specific  duties  wherever  it  is  possible,  as  it  is  a 
safeguard  against  dishonesty. 

On  white  castile  soap  we  believe  the  specific  duty  equivalent  to  the 
present  ad  valorem,  which  is  20  per  cent.,  would  be  li  cents  per  pound, 
and  we  would  recommend  it  to  be  made  1 cent  per  pound.  On  salad 
olive  oil,  say,  50  cents  per  gallon,  which  is  sufficient  protection  against 
the  American  cotton  seed. 

On  so-called  machinery  olive  oil  (not  salad)  10  to  15  cents  per  gallon, 
which  would  protect  lard  oil. 

The  members  of  our  firm  believe  in  a reduction  of  the  tariff  in  many 
articles,  and  the  free-listing  of  many  others,  and  protection  in  but  few 
cases. 

Personally  we  are  not  affected  in  the  goods  we  import  by  the  present 
amount  of  duty,  but  would  like  to  feel  sure  that  no  one  pays  less  duties 
than  ourselves  on  the  articles  we  import.  * 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

CODMAN  & HALL. 


[Hills  Brothers,  dried  fruits.'] 

New  York,  September  10,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular,  August  1,  permit  us  to  say  that, 
in  our  judgment,  duties  on  fruits  should  be  made  entirely  specific;  they 
are  now  mainly  so,  the  principal  exceptions  being  candied  citron,  orange 
and  lemon  peel,  and  on  these  articles  we  think  the  duty  should  be 
changed  to  a specific  one,  as  under  the  present  method  no  importer  can 
tell  exactly  what  such  goods  will  cost  him  laid  down  in  New  York. 

Contracts  for  citron  and  peels  are  generally  made  early  in  the  season 
for  shipment  during  certain  later  months,  the  articles  taking  some  time 
to  preserve  and  manufacture. 

During  the  past  two  seasons  the  price  advanced  considerable  before 
shipments  were  made,  and  when  the  goods  were  entered  at  our  custom- 
S.  Ex.  72 14 


210  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


house  importers  were  compelled  to  advance  their  invoices  to  correspond 
with  the  market  price  abroad  at  the  time  their  fruit  was  shipped. 

In  advancing  an  invoice  there  is  always  danger  to  an  importer  that 
he  may  not  advance  the  price  enough  to  suit  the  ideas  of  the  appraisers, 
and  may  have  to  pay  a heavy  penalty. 

If  the  market  declines  abroad  the  goods  are  still  invoiced  to  the 
importer  at  the  price  contracted  for,  and  he  is  compelled  to  pay  the  ad 
valorem  duty  on  a price  sometimes  much  higher  than  the  market  value 
at  tin*e  of  shipment ; this  we  consider  unfair,  and  a specific  duty  would 
do  away  with  such  injustice. 

We  speak  from  experience,  being  the  largest  importers  of  these  arti- 
cles in  the  United  States. 

At  present  dried  prunes  and  currants  pay  a duty  of  1 cent  per 
pound,  dried  raisins  and  figs  2 cents  per  pound,  filberts  and  walnuts  3 
cents  per  pound,  and  almonds  5 cents  per  pound,  while  Brazil  nuts  come 
in  free. 

We  would  suggest  that  the  rate  be  made  uniform,  one-half  cent  or  1 
cent  per  pound  on  all  dried  fruits  and  nuts  imported.  The  loss  of  reve- 
nue by  thus  making  a uniform  rate  would  be  very  little,  if  any,  the  total 
value  of  all  these  goods  imported  being  small. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

HILLS  BROS. 


[The  same.] 

New  York,  October  23,  1881. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : We  think  a duty  of  2 cents  per  pound  on  citron,  and  1 
cent  per  pound  on  orange  and  lemon  peel,  would  be  about  right.  At 
the  present  time  there  are  no  manufacturers  of  candied  citron,  orange 
or  lemon  peel  in  this  country. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

HILLS  BROS. 


[Thurber,  Whyland  & Co.,  canned  vegetables .] 

New  York,  October  7,  1885. 

Treasury  Department , Washington , D.  G.  : 

Dear  Sir  : Since  I have  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing  you  I have  in- 
vestigated the  matter  of  importation  of  French  peas  by  my  house  in  the 
years  1883,  1884,  and  1885. 

Iuclosed  you  will  find  a table  showing  our  yearly  importation  of  each 
grade,  the  yearly  average  of  duty,  per  case,  paid  by  us  on  each  grade, 
and  finally,  the  grand  average  of  duty  on  French  peas  for  the  last  three 
years  without  regard  to  quality. 

This  grand  average  as  you  see,  is  $3.28  per  case  of  100  tins.  If  you 
will  consult  the  average  of  duty  paid  by  other  importers  you  will  find 
that  it  is  below  ours,  and  I dare  say  considerably  below. 

I submit  to  you  the  idea  of  our  Government  imposing  a specific  duty 
of  $3.50  per  case,  which  would  do  away  with  all  present  trouble  in  re- 
gard to  the  interpretation  of  s'ectiou  7 of  act  of  March  3,  1883, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


211 


This  specific  duty  on  French  peas  would  also  favor  our  home  packers 
of  the  American  article,  from  the  fact  that  the  specific  duty  would  have 
the  effect  of  increasing  the  tariff  on  ordinary  and  medium  quality  of 
goods,  the  ones  with  which  our  home  manufacturers  mostly  compete. 

I remain,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

ALEXIS  GODILLOT,  Jr. 
[TBURBER,  WHYLAND  & Co.] 


Extra  fine. 

Surfine. 

Fine. 

Mayen. 

Tears. 

Cases 

Average 
duty  per  case 
of  100  tins. 

Cases. 

Average 
duty  per  case 
of  100  tins. 

Cases. 

Average 
duty  per  case 
of  100  tins. 

Cases. 

Average 
duty  per  case 
of  100  tins. 

1883 

190 

$4  18 
4 19 

213 

$3  62 
3 67 

425 

$3  14 
3 15 

270 

$2  35 
2 33 

1884 

293 

300 

418 

430 

1885 

455 

3 84 

378 

3 58 

366 

3 01 

358 

2 31 

Average  of  3 
years  

4 07 

3 62 

3 10 

2 33 

Grand  average  of  duty  per  case  of  100  tins  for  the  last  three  years  on  all  grades  of  imported 
“French  peas  ” without  regard  to  quality,  equals  $3.28  per  case  of  100  tins.  . 


[The  same.  ] 

New  York,  October  30, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Yours  of  the  29th  instant  at  hand.  There  are  only  two 
sizes  of  tins  in  which  French  peas  are  packed,  the  u liter  77  and  u half 
liter  5 77  the  former  mostly  used  for  the  French  home  trade.  We  can  safely 
say  that  99  per  cent,  of  the  importations  of  French  peas  are  in  cases  con- 
taining tins  of  half  a liter  each.  Mr.  A.  Godillot  suggested  before  a 
specific  duty  of  3J  cents  per  tin  of  half  a liter,  therefore  the  specific  duty 
on  the  liter  tins  would  be  double,  viz,  7 cents  per  tin. 

We  now  beg  to  add  that  after  consulting  our  invoices  of  French  pre- 
served vegetables  of  all  kinds  in  tins  during  the  last  three  years7  im- 
portations, we  find  that  a specific  duty  of  3J  cents  per  tin  of  half  a liter 
and  7 cents  per  tin  of  one  liter  would  be  as  acceptable  to  the  Govern- 
ment and  as  equitable  to  the  importers,  besides  haviug  the  advantages 
mentioned  in  our  Mr.  A.  Godillot’s  letter. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

THURBER,  WHYLxlND  & CO. 


[The  same.] 

New  York,  November  4, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington , I).  C.: 

Dear  Sir  : Yours  of  the  30th  ultimo  at  hand.  We  will  be  pleased  if 
any  information  we  give  can  be  of  service  to  you  or  our  Government, 
and  you  can  make  whatever  use  you  wish  of  the  same. 


212 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


As  we  had  the  pleasure  of  telling  you  iu  our  last,  French  preserved 
vegetables  of  all  kinds  are  packed  by  measure  and  not  by  weight;  that 
is,  in  liter  and  half  litercansu  We  give  you  below  the  respective  weights 
of  each  article,  but  these  are  not  a criterion  as  regards  prices,  as  all 
these  vegetables  are  packed  in  water,  and  the  cans  weigh  the  same  re- 
gardless of  the  vegetables  they  contain,  they  being  always  full  of  water 
and  the  water  being  as  heavy  as  the  vegetables. 


Lbs.  oz. 

Weight  of  a half  liter  can,  full  of  water 1 2 

Net  weight  of  a half  liter  can  empty 3£ 

Gross  weight  of  the  following  vegetables  in  half  liter  cans: 

Lbs.  oz. 

Mushrooms 1 T| 

Peas 1 2£ 

Flageolet  beaus 1 3 

String  beans 1 3 


Very  respectfully,  vours, 

THUBBEB,  WHYLAND  & CO. 


[Alpheus  H.  Hardy  & Co.,  damage  allowances,  olive  oil,  soaps,  green  fruits.'] 

Boston,  July  29,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary , Washington , Z>.  G. : 

Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  yesterday’s  date  we  have  to  say 
that  in  our  judgment  the  only  way  of  avoiding  the  evils  of  under- 
valuation abroad  is  by  enlargingthe  list  of  articles  subject  to  a specific 
duty ; and  in  our  own  line  of  business  most  articles  are  so  taxed  on 
entry.  We  would  add  others,  as  olive  oil,  soaps,  and  all  green  fruits. 
Olive  oil  was  so  taxed.  Oranges  and  lemons  from  Spain  pay  an  ad  va- 
lorem, while  from  Sicily  they  pay  a specific.  In  our  business  we  re- 
gard the  system  of  damage  allowance  as  more  injurious  to  the  honest 
importer,  and  a greater  fraud  upon  the  Government  than  the  evils  of 
undervaluation,  and  one  much  more  difficult  to  correct.  Indeed,  it  is 
a serious  questiou  whether  anything  short  of  the  abolition  of  all  allow- 
ance for  damage  received  on  the  voyage  of  importation  can  correct  this 
abuse.  We  believe  that  because  of  the  practices  at  certain  ports  mer- 
chants in  others  not  only  labor  at  a great  disadvantage,  but  are  practi- 
cally prohibited  from  importing  certain  goods  directly  into  their  own 
markets.  And  this  system  has  gone  so  far  that  custom-house  brokers 
in  soliciting  business  advertise  and  emphasize  the  fact  that  they  pay 
especial  attention  to  damage  allowances. 

It  is  impossible  to  go  into  details  in  a correspondence,  but  so  far  as 
Boston  merchants  engaged  in  the  Mediterranean  trade  are  concerned, 
we  believe  that  a personal  canvass  among  them  will  substantiate  our 
view  of  the  importance  of  ripping  up  the  damage  allowance  system 
from  the  very  bottom. 

Bespectfully,  yours, 


ALPHEUS  H.  HABDY  & GO. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


213 


[Frederick  S.  Robinson  & Co  , green  fruits  ] 


New  York,  December  2,  1885. 


Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington: 


Sir  : In  reply  to  your  Department  circular  of  the  1st  August  last  we 
beg  to  say  that  we  are  in  favor  of  specific  duties  whenever  practicable, 
which  system,  in  our  opinion,  can  alone  protect  American  interests. 
Weiiad  suggested  to  the  late  Tariff  Commission  specific  duties  on  green 
fruit,  which  was  acted  upon  on  importations  from  the  Mediterranean  in 
boxes,  and  not  in  cases,  while  consistency  demanded  that  the  alteration 
should  have  been  made  on  both  ; and  if  changes  are  to  be  effected  on 
the  present  tariff,  we  respectfully  beg  to  suggest  the  following  specific 
duties:  On  cases  of  oranges,  40  cents  per  case;  on  barrels  of  grapes, 
40  cents  per  barrel ; on  kegs  of  grapes,  20  cents  per  keg,  of  the  usual 
sizes,  and  which  rates  we  believe  will  be  equal  to  the  present  ad  valorem 
duties,  unless  it  will  be  the  intention  of  Congress  to  place  green  fruit 
on  the  free  list,  agriculture,  in  our  opinion,  requiring  no  protection  in 
this  country. 

We  are,  however,  adverse  to  frequent  changes  in  the  tariff,  as  it  gen- 
erally produces  stagnation  in  business,  particularly  when,  as  usual,  the 
revision  is  almost  general. 

Such  articles  alone  should  be  acted  upon  demanding  prompt  legisla- 
tion when  the  interests  of  our  people  require  it. 

To  make  radical  changes  in  the  tariff  is  giving  foreign  nations  ad 
vantages  without  receiving  any  equivalent,  and  on  said  account  we  favor 
commercial  reciprocal  treaties  instead  of  sweeping  changes  in  the 
tariff. 


We  have  the  honor  to  remain  your  obedient  servants, 

FREDERICK  S.  EOBINSON  & CO. 


[S.  W.  Burt,  oranges.'] 

Port  of  New  York,  Naval  Office, 

July  13,  1885. 

My  Dear  Sir  : I inclose  herewith  a memorandum  of  two  entries  of 
oranges  recently  liquidated  in  this  office,  which  exhibit  very  clearly  the 
preposterous  character  of  our  present  tariff,  which  so  often  attempts,  by 
its  differential  niceties,  to  cover  specifically  different  conditions,  and  so 
breeds  absurdities. 

I send  this  memorandum  simply  as  a curious  illustration  of  the  im- 
policy of  trying  to  over-refine  a tax- law,  which  in  its  very  nature  must 
operate  more  or  less  unequally,  and  every  attempt  to  adjust  which  to 
all  possible  conditions  leads  to  complications  and  irregularities  far 
greater  than  those  sought  to  be  avoided. 

• There  are  four  rates  of  duties  on  oranges.  The  importer  who  adheres 
to  the  usual  packages  defined  in  the  law  cannot  compete  with  his  cun 
rung  rival  who  ships  his  goods  in  abnormal  packages. 

There  is  also  in  these  two  examples  a strong  illustration  of  the  preva- 
lent tendency  to  reduce  market  values  by  increasing  the  proportionate 
value  of  the  charges.  The  present  tariff  rates  on  oranges  were  un 


214  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


doubtedly  based  upon  the  old  valuations  under  the  law  prior  to  March, 
1883,  and  the  exclusion  of  changes  has  deranged  the  whole  scheme. 

# * * # # *=  # 


Very  truly,  yours, 


SILAS  W.  BURT. 


Hon.  O.  S.  Fairchild, 

Assistant  Secretary , Washington , D.  G. 


[Entry  36,723.  G.  Wessels  & Co.,  Vertumnus,  March  25,  1885.  451  boxes  oranges, * 
containing  90,200.  Value,  $165.  Appraiser  reported  not  the  legal  capacity,  but 
subject  to  a duty  of  20  per  cent,  under  T.  I.  new  298.] 


Statement  showing  different  amounts  of  duty  assessable  under  the  present  tariff. 

If  in  legal  boxes,  451,  at  25  cents $112  75 

If  in  bulk,  90,200,  at  $1.60 144  32 

As  returned,  actual,  $165,  at  20  per  cent 33  eO 

[Entry  46,798.  G.  Wessels,  Vertumnus,  April  16,  1885.  280  boxes  oranges  containing 

46,000.] 

Value  on  the  trees $100  74 

Value  picking,  packing,  &c 184  69 

Appraiser  reported  boxes  not  the  legal  capacity,  but  subject  to  a duty  of  20  per 
cent. 

Statement  showing  different  duties. 


If  legal  boxes,  280,  at  25  cents $70  00 

If  in  bulk,  46,000,  at  $1.60 73  60 

Actual  duty,  $101,  at  20  per  cent * 20  20 


[Eugene  Schuyler,  dried  currants.~\ 

Ithaca,  FT.  Y.,  October  20,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir:  Having  received  intimation  that  a scheme  for  the  revision  of 
the  tariff  is  being  prepared  in  the  Treasury  Department,  I take  the  lib- 
erty of  calling  your  attention  to  the  expediency  of  diminishing,  if  not 
entirely  removing,  the. duties  on  dried  currants. 

My  excuse  for  presenting  this  matter  to  you  is  that  when  I was  min- 
ister at  Athens  the  Greek  Government  several  times  expressed  to  me 
their  desire  that  the  duties  in  America  should  be  taken  off  this  article. 
Their  wishes  I at  once  presented  to  the  Department  of  State  and  they 
were,  I believe,  communicated  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means. 
Further,  on  leaving  Athens,  I promised  the  Greek  Government  that  I 
would  do  whatever  was  possible  for  them  in  presenting  this  matter  to 
our  Government. 

Dried  currants  are  raised  only  in  Greece,  and  even  there  only  in  the 
northwestern  portion  of  the  Morea  and  in  the  islands  of  Zante  and 
Cephalonia.  It  has  not  yet  been  found  possible  to  cultivate  the  vine 
which  produces  these  currants  in  any  other  part  of  the  world.  Within 
the  districts  where  the  currant  grows  more  and  more  land  has  yearly 
been  brought  under  cultivation,  and  currants  now  constitute  the  greater 
part  of  the  exports  of  Greece.  The  whole  prosperity  of  the  country  de- 

* The  451  boxes  have  “ charges”  $329. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


215 


pends  upon  the  crops,  and  the  Greek  Government  has  therefore  taken 
every  measure  in  its  power  to  increase  the  exportation.  They  have 
succeeded  in  making  commercial  treaties  with  Germany,  Russia,  and 
France,  by  which  the  import  duties  on  currants  have  been  lowered  in 
those  countries  respectively.  They  would  be  willing,  if  necessary  and 
if  possible,  to  give  some  return  to  the  United  States  for  any  diminution 
of  the  duty  on  this  article.  But  as  they  have  already  lowered  the  duties 
on  all  articles  imported  from  America  (and  especially  on  machinery), 
with  the  exception  of  petroleum,  which  is  a Government  monopoly,  the 
whole  of  which  is  purchased  in  the  United  States  under  a contract 
which  has  some  years  yet  to  run,  it  does  not  seem  that  they  possess  now 
any  equivalent  to  offer. 

Considering,  however,  the  comparatively  small  amount  which  this 
duty  brings  to  the  Treasury,  about  $300,000  per  annum,  it  would  be 
possible  for  the  United  States  to  give  up  the  duty  entirely  without  seri- 
ous loss  to  the  revenue. 

As  no  currants  have  ever  been  raised  in  the  United  States,  there  is 
no  question  of  protection  involved.  Our  experience  during  the  last 
seventeen  years  shows  that  every  reduction  of  duty  has  been  attended 
by  an  increase  of  importation  until  after  the  lapse  of  a few  years  the  di- 
minished duties  brought  in  as  much  revenue  as  the  higher  duties  pre- 
viously. 

I beg  leave  to  annex,  for  your  convenience,  a table  showing  the  quan- 
tities and  values  of  currants  imported  into  the  United  States,  together 
with  the  rates  of  duties  and  the  amount  collected  on  the  same,  from 
1867-’83,  taken  from  the  official  statement  published  by  the  Bureau  of 
Statistics  of  the  Treasury  Department.  By  this  you  will  see  that  the 
amount  imported  in  1882,  with  a duty  of  1 cent  per  pound,  was  more 
than  four  times  as  great  as  that  imported  in  18G9,  the  highest  year,  when 
the  duty  was  5 cents  per  pound;  although  the  amount  received  from 
duties  was  not  quite  equal  in  1882  to  1869. 

Dried  currants  cannot  be  considered  a luxury,  as  their  use  is  confined 
chiefly  to  the  lower  middle  class  for  flavoring  the  more  ordinary  kinds 
of  sweet  cakes.  In  England,  for  I am  unable  to  say  how  it  is  in  the 
United  States^  currants  are  an  article  of  necessity  to  miners ; for  it  is 
found  that  they  possess  heat-giving  qualities,  and  the  miners  drink,  in 
order  to  keep  themselves  warm  while  at  work,  water  which  has  beeu 
poured  over  and  allowed  to  stand  on  a handful  of  dried  currants  of  this 
description.  Freeing  them  from  duty  would  therefore  seem  to  be  an 
advantage  to  the  working  class. 

Begging  you  kindly  to  take  this  subject  into  consideration,  I have 
the  honor  to  be,  Mr.  Secretary, 

Your  obedient  servant, 


EUGENE  SCHUYLER. 


21 G REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Table  showing  the  quantity  and  value  of  imported  currants  entered  for  consumption  in  Ihe 
United  States , together  with  the  rates  of  duty  and  the  amounts  of  duty  collected  on  the 
same  during  each  year  ended  June  30,  from  1867  to  1883,  inclusive. 

\ 

[.Currants,  Zante,  and  all  other.] 


Fiscal  year  ended 
June  30— 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Rate  of 
duty 
per 
pound. 

Amount  of 
duty. 

Addi- 
tional and 
discrim- 
inating 
duty. 

Average 
value  per 
unit  of 
quantity. 

Aver- 
age ad 
valo- 
rem 
duty. 

1867  

Pounds. 
6,  685, 109 

6,  736,  229 

7,  920,  376 

$295,  606  52 
253,  302  43 
257,  248  00 

Cents. 

5 

$334,255  45 
336,811  45 
396,018  80 

. 044 

P.  cent. 
113.  06 

1868 

5 

. 037 

132.  95 

1869  

5 

$52  80 

.032 

153.  94 

1870  

7,  662,  942.  50 

295,  789  20 

5 

383,147  13 

64  50 

.038 

129.87 

1871 ^ 

4, 105,  725 

212,  785  35 

5 

205,286  25 

.052 

91.77 

5,118,  611 

224.  359  54 

n 

127,965  32 

.043 

56.  99 

1872  

1873  £ 

11,  479,  578 
83,  872 
14,  057,  925 

467,  289  58 
4, 108  00 
562,  278  49 

i 

i 

286,989  46 
2,096  80 
140,579  25 

.040 

.048 

.040 

61.  42 
51.  04 
25.  00 

1874  

19,319, 191 

752,  694  00 

i 

193,191  91 

3 30 

.038 

25.  66 

1875  

19,334,  458 

771,  384  56 

i 

193,344  58 

3 70 

.040 

25.  06 

1876  

20,  911,061 
17,  152,  664 
17,  941,352 

17,  405,347 

18,  007,  492 
21,631,512 
32,  592,  231 
31, 171, 171 

856,425  62 
749,  488  00 
776, 827  00 
520,  831  07 
600,  603  40 
845,773  00 
| 1,388,886  00 

1,  247,  504  00 

i 

209, 110  61 

.041 

24.  42 

1877  

i 

171,526  64 
179,413  52 
174,053  47 
180,074  92 
216,315  12 
325,922  31 

. 043 

22.  88 

1878  

i 

. 043 

23.  09 

1879  .. 

i 

. 030 

33.  42 

1880  

i 

. 033 

29.  98 

1881 

i 

. 039 

25.  58 

1882  . 

.043 

23.  47 

1883  

i 

311,711  71 

.040 

24.  99 

[James  A.  Hayes  & Co.,  dried  and  preserved  fruits,  vegetables,  $c.  ] 

Boston,  September  1,  1885. 

The  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury",  Washington: 

Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  of  July  27,  the  undersigned,  for  many 
years  past  engaged  in  the  importing  of  olive  oil,  dried  and  sugared  fruits, 
pickles,  preserves,  mustard,  &c.,  desires  to  express  the  opinion  that 
specific  duties  serve  to  protect  the  honest  importer  from  fraudulent  ad- 
vantages often  gained  by  foreign  exporters. 

Fixed  specific  rates  tend  to  the  bringing  of  sounder  and  better  quality 
of  commodities  to  this  country,  to  the  exclusion  of  low  grades  not  re- 
quired, as  is  demonstrated  under  the  present  specific  duties  on  sardines 
and  other  prepared  fish. 

Prunes,  cheese,  oatmeal,  chocolate,  ground  mustard,  now  paying  10 
cents  per  pound,  equal,  to  nearly  GO  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  while  uu- 
ground  mustard  is  free  of  duty. 

We  suggest  the  duty  on  ground  mustard  to  be  specific,  5 cents  per 
pound ; also  on  ground  pepper  and  other  spices,  5 cents  per  pound ; 
pickles,  vegetables,  &c.,  prepared  with  vinegar,  1J  cents  per  pound ; 
pickles,  vegetables,  &c.,  in  brine  or  salt,  three-fourths  cent  per  pound. 

Which,  with  annexed  memoranda,  is  respectfully  submitted  by 

JAMES  A.  HAYES  & CO. 


Olive  oil  for  eating  and  medicinal  purposes,  now  pays  ad  valorem  duty  25  per 
cent  , as  expiessed  oil.  It  being  next  to  impossible  for  appraisers  to  correctly  judge 
of  the  true  value  of  this  article,  much  decoptiou  is  practiced  by  underinvoicing, 
whereas  a specific  duty  of  20  or  25  cents  per  gallon  on  all  salad , olive , or  eating  oils  would 
amount  to  about  25  per  cent,  on  the  average  price  of  such  oils  in  Europe,  while  10 
or  12  cents  per  gallon  on  machinery  or  manufacturing  olive  oil.  unfit  for  eatiug,  would 
be  about  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  same. 


REVISION  OF  TIIE  TARIFF. 


217 


Sugared  fruits. — Plums,  cherries,  figs,  limes,  citron,  orange  peel,  ginger  root,  &c.,  pre- 
pared with  sugar,  now  pay  ad  valorem  duty  35  per  cent.,  whereas  a specific  rate  2 to 
3 cents  per  pound  would  admit  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  doing  some  of  the 
business  in  these  articles,  which  is  now  mostly  controlled  by  foreign  houses. 


[The  same.] 


Boston,  November  18, 1885. 

Since  the  above  date  the  writer  has  .been  in  Europe  and  learned  far- 
ther of  the  wrongful  practice  under  ad  valorem  rates  of  duties,  and  is 
more  fully  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  specific  rates. 

Respectfully, 

JAMES  A.  HAYES  & GO. 


[Ward,  Hill  & McClellan,  stationery , druggists'  sundries , and  toys.'] 

Saint  Paul,  Minn.,  November  9,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  July  26.  Probably  un- 
dervaluations occur,  but  presumably  so  in  isolated  cases,  and  where  the 
amounts  are  large,  as  when  foreign  factories  have  agents  in  this  country. 

My  experience  in  the  last  twenty  years  connected  with  importing 
houses  leads  me  to  believe  that  goods  are  not  undervalued  by  the  im- 
porters, but  that  the  tariff  itself,  from  the  nature  of  its  construction,  its 
obvious  advantages  to  the  few  as  against  the  masses,  and  even  the  Gov- 
ernment’s interests,  together  with  its  different  constructions  by  Depart- 
ment decisions — all  are  a constant  source  of  temptation  not  to  under- 
value, but  to  enter  at  the  lowest  possible  classification. 

As  an  example,  “ smokers’  sets”  (ornamental  articles  of  various  ma- 
terials, and  consisting  of  receptacles  for  cigars,  tobacco,  matches,  &c.) 
were  probably  intended  to  be  entered  under  u smokers’  articles,”  and 
pay  a duty  of  70  per  cent.  However,  if  made  of  wood,  they  are  entered 
under  manufactures  of  wood,  and  pay  35  per  cent.;  or,  if  of  terra  cotta, 
they  are  entered  as  manufactures  of  earthenware,  and  pay  55  per  cent. 
It  frequently,  x>erhaps  designedly,  happens  that  the  invoice  does  not 
state  of  what  materials  these  sets  are  made,  nor  would  the  importer 
always  know  until  after  the  duties  had  been  paid  and  the  goods  un- 
packed. This  difference  in  duties  by  the  several  classifications  is  more 
than  usual  profits. 

In  reply  to  the  last  clause  of  your  letter.  I have  carefully  gone  over 
the  numerous  list  of  articles  with  which  I am  familiar  in  our  business, 
with  the  intention  of  naming  specific  duties,  but  am  met  at  every  step 
with  the  animus  of  the  tariff.  Starting  at  soap,  Schedule  A,  chemical 
product,  section  2502,  we  find:  “ Hard  and  Soft,  &c.,  20  per  cent.”  With 
these  I am  not  familiar,  but  why  is  castile  classed  with  them  ? Evidently, 
it  does  not  conflict  with  American  products,  and  if  placed  under  fancy 
soap,  would  then  pay  from  1 to  200  per  cent.;  but  why  should  “fancy 
soap”  pay  15  cents  per  pound,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  equal  to 
over  100  per  cent,  duty?  Simply  that  foreign  soaps  may  not  compete 
with  domestic,  and  by  this  prohibitory  duty  defrauding  the  Govern- 
ment of  any  considerable  duty  on  soap  (excepting  castile). 


218 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Similar  results  will  follow  on  most  articles  with  which  I am  familiar, 
even  down  to  “diamonds,”  including  glaziers’  diamonds  on  the  free  list. 

The  faults  of  the  present  tariff  are  many,  but  may  be  reduced  to  the 
one  point,  viz:  Its  object  is  not  the  support  of  our  Government  at  all, 
but  how  to  disguise  the  discriminations  it  makes  against  the  masses 
and  the  Government  for  the  benefit  of  the  few. 

.Respectfully, 

ward,  hill  & McClellan, 

By  EUGENE  WARD. 


[Robert  Clarke  & Co.,  books .] 

Cincinnati,  July  27, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning-, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular  of  25th  instant  is  received.  As  our  im- 
portations are  such  as  are  suitable  to  a large  retail  business,  we  seldom 
import  single  books  in  quantities.  For  our  needs  and  those  of  our  cus- 
tomers we  would  object  to  a specific  duty  in  place  of  an  ad  valorem 
duty,  as  it  Would  be  discriminating  against  the  poor  and  in  favor  ol  ’lie 
rich.  A 5-shilling  and  a 20-shilliug  book  very  often  weigh  the  same, 
and  would  under  a specific  duty  pay  the  same  duty.  This,  of  course, 
is  what  the  publishers  and  reprinters  want,  by  a heavy  duty  to  hinder 
the  importation  of  the  originals  and  their  reprints.  It  would,  however, 
affect  also  thousands  of  books  which  are  never  reprinted,  and  in  this 
case  would  be  a hardship.  Of  the  books  reprinted* people  are  gener- 
ally content  with  the  reprint.  It  is  seldom  we  are  asked  to  import  an 
English  book  of  which  there  is  a reprint. 

It  is  a question  whether  the  needs  of  the  public,  who  are  the  buyers, 
should  not  be  taken  into  consideration  quite  as  much  as  the  wants  of 
the  few  publisher^  and  reprinters.  The  people  want  cheap  books.  Those 
reprinted  are  cheap  enough  ; but  the  thousands  that  are  never  reprinted 
they  want  cheap  also.  Under  a specific  duty  they  would  be  dispropor- 
tionately dear;  under  an  ad  valorem  duty  they  would  be  reasonably 
cheap. 

Our  objection  to  a specific  duty  would  be  an  internal  one.  We  would 
be  unable  to  quote  a fixed  price  for  importation  of  books,  as  the  cost 
would  depend  on  the  weight,  which  we  have  no  means  of  knowing, 
when  as  under  an  ad  valorem  duty  it  is  fixed  by  the  publisher’s  price, 
which  is  known. 

We  think  the  present  rate  of  duty  is  fair  to  all  concerned,  giving  the 
publisher  or  reprinter  quite  as  much  protection  as  he  should  ask,  and, 
with  the  free  importation  of  books  printed  over  twenty  years,  not 
oppressive  on  the  buyers. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

ROB.  CLARKE  & CO. 


[Houghton,  Mifflin  & Co.,  books.] 


The  Riverside  Press, 
Cambridge , August  25,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  I am  in  receipt  of  your  circular  of  July  29.  Several  years  ago 
there  was  a good  deal  of  undervaluation,  and  very  great  want  of  system 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


219 


in  the  valuation  of  invoices  of  books.  I then  favored  a specific  duty, 
and  prepared  a comparative  table  of  the  amounts  required  by  specific 
as  well  as  ad  valorem  duties.  Since  then,  however,  the  method  of  as- 
sessing the  duties  has  been  very  much  systematized,  and  the  values  of 
books  are  so  well  understood  in  both  markets  that  I am  inclined  to  think 
there  is  very  little  undervaluation.  The  difficulty  in  fixiug  a specific 
duty  for  books  lies  in  the  fact  of  the  great  variety  of  prices  for  books, 
not  determined  by  their  bulk,  but  by  a great  many  other  conditions 
which  do  not  apply  to  ordinary  merchandise.  The  specific  duty  would 
increase  the  cost  and  protect  the  production  of  the  cheaper  class  of  books 
in  this  country,  and  would  allow  very  expensive  books,  bought  mostly 
by  the  rich,  to  come  in  at  a comparatively  low  rate.  I think,  therefore, 
that  a change  from  the  ad  valorem  to  specific  duties  on  books  would 
involve  so  many  questions  as  to  make  it  very  difficult  to  effect  the 
change,  and  of  very  little  practical  value  when  done.  There  has  been 
more  misconception,  probably,  in  the  matter  of  duties  on  books  than  on 
any  other  kind  of  merchandise.  The  glittering  generality  is  often  in- 
dulged in  that  knowledge  should  be  free.  So  is  the  wind  free,  but  it 
may  be  necessary  to  tax  the  windmill.  It  is  not  the  knowledge  that  we 
tax,  but  the  paper  and  ink,  and  types,  and  the  material  out  of  which  the 
books  are  made,  and  probably  there  is  no  industry  in  the  whole  range 
of  industries  in  this  country  where  there  is  so  great  a proportion  of 
skilled  labor  required  as  in  that  of  the  production  of  books.  This  labor 
is  uot  too  well  paid  as  it  is,  and  a slight  variation  of  the  duty  would 
largely  change  the  production  of  books  from  this  country  to  a foreign 
country.  This  is  particularly  true  of  a large  class  of  books,  such  as 
those  of  standard  authors,  where  the  copyrights  have  expired,  and  which 
are  very  widely  distributed  among  all  classes  of  people  in  this  country. 
It  was  demonstrated  very  clearly  in  the  discussion  which  arose  two  or 
three  years  ago  that  the  difference  of  1 or  2 cents  deduction  of  the  duty 
now  existing  would  transfer  the  manufacture  of  that  very  large  class  of 
books  to  England  or  the  Continent  of  Europe,  and  the%duty  was  very 
properly  restored  from  the  report  of  the  Tariff  Commission  to  the  present 
rate.  I shall  be  glad  to  have  this  communication,  for  the  present,  con- 
sidered as  confidential. 

Yours  very  truly, 

H.  O.  HOUGHTON, 

Of  Houghton , Mifflin  & Co. 


[The  same.] 

Boston,  Mass.,  November  5,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir  : I am  in  receipt  of  your  favors  of  September  26  and  October  17, 
respectively.  In  accordance  with  the  request  of  the  favor  of  Septem- 
ber 26,  I have  to  say  that  the  table  which  I had  made  up  of  the  com- 
parative rates  of  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties  was  destroyed  several 
years  ago  in  the  burniug  of  our  office  in  this  city.  I have  tried  to  make 
a new  one,  but  have  not  the  means  at  hand  to  make  it  so  complete  as 
the  previous  one  $ but  I trust  the  one  I have  will  be  clear.  It  can  be 
tested  indefinitely  by  examples  from  different  publishing  houses.  While. 
15  cents  a pound  will  probably  be  as  nearly  an  equivalent  rate  as  pos- 


220  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


sible  to  a 25  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  my  table  does  not  show  as  fully  as  I 
believe  to  be  the  fact,  that  a specific  duty  will  be  greater  on  a cheaper 
class  of  books,  and  less  on  dear  books. 

Respectfully, 

H.  O.  HOUGHTON. 


Schedule  A. 


Weight. 

Ad  valorem 
duty  25  per 
cent. 

Equivalent 
specific 
duty  per 
pound, 
about — 

Duty  reck- 
oned at 
15  centsper 
pound.* 

Gentleman’s  Magazine,  vol.  4,  large  paper 

Ounces. 

53 

Cents. 

63 

.19 

.495 

Gentleman’s  Magazine,  vol.  4 

29£ 

18 

.097 

.276 

Siberia,  1 vol 

39i 

13£ 

• 05£ 

.37 

Marlowe,  vol.  1,  large  paper 

33 

40 

.194 

.309 

Marlowe,  vol.  1,  regular  edition 

25 

24 

.153 

.234 

Swift’s  Works,  vol.  2 

32 

30 

.15 

.30 

State  Trials,  vol.  1 

24 

18 

.12 

.225 

Douglass  Paper  Books 

5i 

04 

. 12 

.048 

Longman’s  New  Testament 

96 

63 

•105 

■90 

* Average  duty  on  above  nine  books  about  15  cents  per  pound. 


[Southwortli  Company,  paper  manufactures .] 

Mittineaque,  Mass., 

August , 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : Responding  to  your  circular  in  regard  to  proposed  sub- 
stitution of  “ specific 77  for  u ad  valorem  77  duties,  permit  me  to  express 
my  admiration  of  the  thoughtful  care  which  this  method  suggests,  and 
of  the  consideration  it  shows  in  giving  manufacturers  generally  an  op- 
portunity to  express  their  views.  As  paper  ranges  all  the  way — in  sell- 
ing price — from  2.J  cents  per  pound  for  roofing  paper  up  to  50  cents  per 
pound  for  a bond  paper,  it  would  seem  as  if  a specific  duty  would  be 
impossible,  except  with  classification  which  would  perhaps  leave  room 
for  evasion  equally  with  present  ad  valorem  duties. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

h.  w.  southworth; 

Treasurer . 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS. 


1 (a).  Best  of  new  linen  rags  ; for  the  most  part  imported  at  a cost  of  9 cents  per 
pound ; no  duty  charged  on  rags,  waste,  and  tare  would  increase  actual  cost  of  stock 
which  is  incorporated  in  paper  to  12  cents  per  pound. 

1 (&).  Preparing  stock,  3 cents  per  pound  (hand  labor) ; tending  machinery,  5 cents 
per  pound  ; hand  labor  finishing,  2 cents  per  pound;  coal,  water-power,  insurance, 
freights,  salaries,  &c.,  4 cents  per  pound;  total,  26  cents  per  pound  for  No.  1 thick. 

But  for  No.  1 thin  must  be  added  10  cents  more  per  pound,  to  be  divided  about 
equally  between  “ additional  waste  and  cost  in  surfacing,”  “ tending  machinery,”  and 
“hand  labor  finishing.”  Women’s  wages  average  ; men’s  wages  average  $2.25  per 
day. 


HE  VISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


221 


2 (6).  Cheapest  of  cotton  rags  are  used,  and  shavings  from  trimming  books  and  old 
papers.  As  this  stock  is  ground  only  about  one-fourtli  as  long  as  the  No.  1,  the  waste 
is  much  less,  and  nearly  4 tons  can  be  made  of  No.  2 while  1 ton  of  No.  1 is  being 
made.  Cost  of  stock  about  3 cents  per  pound ; preparing  stock,  1 cent  per  pound  ; 
tending  machinery,  2 cents  per  pound;  hand  labor,  one-half  cent  per  pound ; coal, 
water-power,  insurance,  freights,  salaries,  &c.,  cents  per  pound;  total,  8 cents  per 
pound. 

2 ( d ).  This  is  a variable  quantity  and  depends  on  the  amount  of  profits  to  be  divided 
among  stockholders. 

2 ( e ).  Wear  and  tear,  which  in  a paper  mill  is  very  large,  as  many  of  the  floors  are 
wet  and  rot  out  rapidly. 

(I  am  not  practically  acquainted  with  manufacture  of  engine-sized  paper,  so  I have 
to  make  this  sheet  on  hearsay  evidence.) 

3.  Buildings  are  necessarily  of  brick  or  stone,  as  the  “ mortality”  of  wood  paper 
mills  is  very  large,  on  account  of  their  danger  from  fire.  “Description  of  machinery” 
would  be  very  difficult  to  make  in  a brief  letter.  “Amount  of  capital  invested”  here 
is  about  $200,000  ; but  our  mill  is  a small  one. 

4.  I cannot  give  answer,  except  that  it  is  satisfactory  to  the  manufacturers,  as 
duties  are  now  assessed.  A reduction  of  duties  was  made  some  years  since. 

In  the  manufacture  of  paper  a good  water-power  is  required,  as  the  “beating 
engines,”  run  night  and  day,  require  a great  deal  of  power.  To  make  white  paper 
a good  supply  of  clear,  pure  wash-water  is  necessary  ; these  two  conditions  compel 
the  locating  of  writing-paper  mills  at  a distance  from  sea  board,  and  consequently 
compelling  transportation  for  considerable  distance  of  coal,  of  which  as  much  in 
weight  is  used  as  paper  is  made,  for  boiling,  drying,  drying-lofts,  and  heating,  and 
stock  and  chemicals  are  once  and  a half  greater  in  weight  than  paper  made  ; so  that 
the  item  of  freight  is  necessarily  a large  one.  Taxes  are  very  high,  the  State  de- 
manding a copy  of  annual  inventory,  and  it  takes  all  assets,  even  out  of  the  State, 
that  the  town  and  county  assessors  do  not  tax.  The  character  of  labor  in  writing- 
paper  mills  is  necessarily  of  a high  order  of  intelligence,  for  the  machinery  is  not  self- 
regulating,  and  judgment  must  be  shown  in  every  process,  while  fidelity  is  essential; 
hence  the  liberal  wages  paid.  Using  the  word  “character”  in  the  moral  sense,  the 
evidence  is  most  satisfactory.  The  employment  of  men  and  women  is  so  fortunately 
balanced  that  “family  help” — the  possible  employment  of  all  the  members  of  the 
family  except  the  mother— prevents  the  herding  in  boarding-houses  (except  at  Holy- 
oke), while  the  leading  mill-owner,  being  usually  manager  and  near  resident,  makes 
his  influence  more  closely  felt  among  his  hands  than  in  manufactures  which  employ 
larger  mills  and  larger  bodies  of  employes,  and  with  disparity  in  relative  number  of 
the  sexes. 

As  near  as  I can  judge,  the  present  duties  just  about  cover  the  difference  in  labor 
and  what  is  considered  a fair  profit  over  the  same  items  in  foreign  manufacture.  The 
president  of  the  Paper-Makers’  Association,  W.  H.  Parsons,  66  Duane  street,  New 
York,  could  answer  this  more  understandingly. 

I have  never  known  any  complaint  of  or  any  suspicion  of  evasion  of  duties.  Through 
protection  (as  we  believe),  the  importation  of  writing  paper  has  been  reduced,  so  that 
it  is  only  about  2 per  cent,  of  what  it  was  at  the  highest  point,  when  prices  were  high 
after  the  war,  for,  through  this  protection,  American  paper-makers  have  dared  to  ex- 
periment, and  often  have  succeeded,  in  equaling  foreign  high-priced  papers. 

I trust  I am  not  giving  “too  free  translation”  of  above  in  expressing  my  convic- 
tion of  the  importance  of  the  two  other  possible  governmental  efforts  to  foster  Ameri- 
can industries : 

(1)  The  repression  of  pauper  immigration. 

(2)  The  fostering  of  facilities  for  information  as  to  what  articles  are  consumed  in 
South  America  and  other  parts  of  this  continent. 

Of  the  “first,”  the  old  excuse  of  “ the  need  of  cheap  labor  to  develop  the  country” 
has  ceased  to  have  force,  except  with  a few  railroad  contractors,  who  give  employ- 
ment to  the  class  who  are  a large  part  of  the  unsettled  and  turbulent  laborers,  who  are 
the  tools  in  the  hands  of  unscrupulous  agitators,  who  seem  desirous  of  precipitating 
that  which  many  thoughtful  men  believe  will  be  our  next- great  internecioe  strife,  the 
conflict  of  labor  and  capital.  The  immigrants  with  money  go  to  the  West  to  become 
land-holders  and  law-abiding  citizens. 

Of  the  “second,”  it  would  seem  as  if  the  consular  service  might  be  broadened  and 
made  more  effective  (say)  by  establishing  a bureau  of  information  at  Washington  (or, 
perhaps  better,  New  York)  where  every  branch  of  business  or  manufacture  could  get 
intelligent  information  of  the  articles  consumed  in  other  parts  of  this  continent,  of 
the  channels  of  distribution,  and  the  prices  paid  and  samples ; beyond  a certain  general 
line  of  information,  payment  would  be  made  by  those  seeking  it,  but  Government 
would  furnish  competent  and  reliable  agents  to  make  such  investigations. 

Almost  every  branch  of  trade  or  manufacture  has  not  only  its  trade  journals,  but 


222 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


its  trade  organizations,  which  would  he  convenient  channels  to  invite  inquiries  and 
disseminate  information. 

Some  inquiries  which  I have  made  recently  have  convinced  me  how  difficult  it  is  to 
obtain  such  knowledge. 

Demand  for  articles  not  now  used  in  those  countries  could  be  created  by  permanent 
exhibits  (paid  for  by  exhibitors)  but  directed  and  cared  for  by  a branch  of  consular 
service  or  working  with  it. 

Pardon  this  long  communication,  which,  however,  comes  from  a very  busy  man,  but 
one  who  feels  deeply  on  these  points. 

Appended  to  this  we  show  you  samples  of  the  best  aud  of  the  cheapest  grade  of 
writing  paper.*  We  append  price  to  show  the  relative  cost  of  each  (i.  e.,  cost  of 
paper  to  jobber)  to  indicate  the  wide  range  of  value  even  in  this  branch.  I put  num- 
bers on  them  for  convenience  of  reference  in  showing  relative  cost  of  making.  The 
next  lower  classification  of  white  or  tint  paper  is  book  paper,  and  below  that  is  news- 
paper. Presumably,  others  who  make  these  last  two  (as  we  do  not)  can  give  yod  in- 
formation which  I have  not  at  hand,  but  will  gladly  get  such  information  if  desired 
and  not  furnished  by  makers  of  those  grades  of  papers. 


[Harper  & Brothers,  books  and  electrotype  plates.'] 

New  York,  July  28,  1885. 

Hod.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir  : We  are  in  favor  of  specific  duties  on  books  by  weight  and  on 
electrotype  plates  by  measurement  of  surface  instead  of  the  present 
method  of  ad  valorem. 

#*##### 

Very  respectfullv, 

HARPER  & BROTHERS. 


[The  same.] 

November  14, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir:  We  hasten  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  communication 
of  the  13th  instant. 

It  seems  to  us  that  the  existing  tariff  discriminates  against  American 
labor  wherever  the  duties  upon  the  materials  from  which  books  are 
manufactured  exceed  the  duties  upon  manufactured  books — as  is  the 
case,  for  instance,  with  book-cloth,  the  duty  on  which  is  35  per  cent,  as 
against  25  per  cent,  on  books.  But  we  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as 
advocating  higher  duties  on  books. 

Very  respectfully, 

HARPER  & BROTHERS. 


[Estes  & Lauriat,  books.] 

Boston,  August  4,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  July  29  we  would  say 
that  we  have  for  a loug  time  been  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  a specific 
* Note.— Samples  will  be  transmitted  separately  to  Congress. 


REVISION  OE  THE  TARIFF. 


223 


duty  upon  books  and  other  matters  appertaining  thereto  would  be  ad- 
visable, and  we  have  given  a great  deal  of  thought  and  attention  to  this 
and  other  matters  appertaining  to  the  international  relations  connected 
with  our  trade,  having  warmly  favored  a system  of  international  copy- 
right for  many  years.  We  merely  mention  this  to  show  you  that  the 
subject  is  not  new  to  us. 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  form  any  estimate  of  the  amount  of  under- 
valuations from  which  our  firm  and  the  Government  have  suffered  in 
past  years,  but  it  is  an  unquestioned  fact  that  there  have  been  a large 
amount  of  undervaluations  in  books  and  other  matters  connected  with 
the  publication  of  books.  We  can  conceive  of  no  plan  to  prevent  such 
evasions  except  by  a uniform,  specific  duty  upon  all  classes  of  books, 
with  the  exception  of  certain  classes  to  be  hereafter  mentioned,  which 
we  think  should  be  wholly  free  of  duty. 

We  would  recommend  first,  that  all  books  printed  upwards  of  twenty 
years,  as  at  the  present,  should  be  free  of  duty. 

Second,  that  all  books  printed  in  foreign  languages  should  be  free  of 
duty,  it  being,  in  our  opinion,  a manifest  absurdity  that  Government 
should  collect  a duty  upon  books  of  this  class  when  it  doesn’t  need  the 
revenue,  and  when  it  is  taxing  a class  of  merchandise  which  is  not  an 
American  product,  and  cannot  therefore  require  protection. 

Third,  we  would  recommend  for  all  other  classes  of  books  a uniform 
specific  duty,  of,  say,  12  cents  per  pound  on  all  classes  of  books,  for  the 
following  reasons:  (1)  Because  it  would  make  a high  protective  tariff 
upon  a cheap  class  of  books,  which,  in  our  opinion,  are  the  only  ones 
which  require  protection  at  the  hands  of  the  Government ; (2)  because 
it  would  be  a measure  of  reduction  upon  very  costly  books,  such  as  can- 
not in  the  nature  of  things  be  reprinted,  and  many  of  which,  such  as 
scientific  and  technological  books,  are  important  to  our  students  to  be 
imported  at  a merely  nominal  rate  of  duty,  and  (3)  we  would  recommend 
that  stereotype  and  electrotype  plates  should  pay  a specific  duty  of  a 
sum  not  to  exceed  the  amount  that  is  otherwise  levied  upon  the  mate- 
rial of  which  such  plates  are  composed.  We  would  suggest  the  same 
rule  to  apply  to  steel  and  copper  plates  for  the  production  of  illustra- 
tions to  books. 

In  conclusion  we  would  say  that  we  are  both  manufacturers  of  Amer- 
ican books  to  a very  large  extent,  and  also  importers  of  books  and 
plates,  as  above  mentioned,  so  that  we  believe  we  can  take  a fair  and 
impartial  view  of  the  matter  from  each  aspect. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

ESTES  & LAURIAT. 


[Address  of  the  Smith  Township  Wool  Growers’ Association,  ivool.'] 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : We,  the  Smith  Township  (Washington  County,  Pennsyl- 
vania) Wool-growers’ Association,  in  availing  ourselves  of  your  kind  in- 
vitation, extended  to  the  different  industries  of  our  country,  to  place 
themselves  in  communication  with  the  Treasury  Department,  respect- 
fully beg  leave  to  direct  your  attention  to  some  of  the  adverse  circum- 
stances surrounding  the  great  wool-producing  interests  of  the  Ohio  Val- 
ley, and  to  suggest,  in  an  humble  way,  a few  changes  in  the  existing 
tariff  schedule,  which  we  deem  of  vital  importance,  not  only  to  the  wool- 


224 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


growers  themselves,  but  changes  in  justice  due  the  great  agricultural 
portion  of  our  country.  You  are  aware  that  we  are  pre  eminently  an 
agricultural  people,  that  agricultural  interests  tower  above  and  over- 
shadow all  other  industries  of  our  country,  and  that  therefore  any  cir- 
cumstance, or  condition,  favorable  to,  or  contributing  to  the  well-being 
and  prosperity  of,  the  agricultural  interests  of  our  country  is  indeed  a 
boon  to  the  whole  nation. 

By  reference  to  census  statistics  you  will  find  that  at  no  time  have  we, 
as  a people,  produced  sufficient  wool  for  home  consumption ; that,  year 
by  year,  the  percentage  of  increase  of  population  far  exceeds  the  increase 
of  wool  production  ; and,  from  figures  of  the  Agricultural  Department, 
as  also  from  personal  observation,  this  association  assures  you  that  since 
the  enactment  of  the  tariff  rates  of  1883  the  decrease  in  wool  production 
in  the  Ohio  Valley  has  been  an  hundred  fold  intensified;  that  the  wool 
clip  of  1885  was  fully  25  per  cent,  less  than  that  of  1884 ; and  that  from 
present  indications  the  clip  of  1886  will  fall  much  under  that  of  1885, 
and  the  continuance  of  the  existing  tariff  rates  upon  imported  wool  will 
in  a very  short  time  drive  all  wool-growers  east  of  the  Mississippi  into 
other  channels  of  agriculture.  This  would  be  a disaster  our  country 
could  not  survive,  as  it  would  prostrate  all  our  agricultural  interests 
by  causing  an  immense  increase  in  our  already  prodigious  overproduc- 
tion of  grain  and  provisions.  There  can  be  no  permanent  prosperity 
that  does  not  begin  and  abide  with  our  farming  interests  ; when  it  pros- 
pers, manufacturing  and  commercial  interests  prosper;  when  it  is  de- 
pressed all  trades  and  occupations  suffer ; and  business  every  where  will 
continue  sluggish  until  relief  is  brought  about  through  our  agricultural 
channels.  To-day  grain-raising  in  America  is  unprofitable ; likewise, 
also,  is  beef  and  pork  production  unprofitable. 

What  will  be  the  condition  of  the  above-mentioned  industries  when 
re-enforced  by  a million  wool-growers,  to  augment  the  already  too  great 
overproduction  of  our  country  ? And  what  an  immense  sum  it  will  cost 
the  American  people  when  they  are  compelled  to  import  the  great  bulk 
of  their  wool  and  woolen  goods  for  home  consumption. 

Do  you  ask  “ What  is  the  present  condition  of  the  wool  interests  of 
the  Ohio  Valley?”  We  answer  that  at  present  prices  the  wool-grower 
sacrifices  at  least  5 cents  per  pound  on  his  wool  clip — in  other  words, 
even  at  the  unremunerative  prices  of  grain  and  hay,  our  wool-growers, 
by  sacrificing  their  flocks  and  marketing  their  grain  would  gain  over 
the  present  prices  of  wool  an  amount  equal  to  from  5 to  8 cents  per 
pound  on  all  the  wool  produced.  Thus  it  is  that  our  shepherds  by  the 
thousands  are  fleeing  to  other  occupations,  believing  it  better  to  labor 
for  poor  compensation  than  by  continuing  wool-growing  at  a positive 
loss,  to  be  compelled  finally  to  part  with  their  inherited  property. 

Do  you  inquire  a remedy  for  this  deplorable  state  of  affairs  and  a 
remedy  for  the  business  depression  of  the  country?  If  so,  let  us  hum- 
bly beg  your  thoughtful  consideration  of  the  following  suggestions: 
By  a revision  of  the  present  ruinous  tariff  rates  upon  imported  wool, 
let  the  American  shepherd  have  ample  protection  from  cheaply  grown 
foreign  wool,  sufficient  to  save  him  from  the  positive  loss  of  5 cents  per 
pound  on  his  wool.  While  still  leaving  him  poorly  remunerated  for 
his  labor,  this  will  prevent  him  seeking  other  occupations  by  placing 
him  on  a par  with  the  grain  grower  and  meat  producer,  ancl  may  re- 
claim sufficient  re-enforcements  from  our  other  agricultural  interests  as 
in  a few  years  to  produce  within  ourselves  wool  sufficient  for  home  con- 
sumption. This  will  give  the  shepherd  a living  chance,  and  will  cost 
the  American  people  but  a trifle  more  for  their  woolen  fabrics.  By  a 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


225 


restoration  of  the  tariff  duties  of  1867  upon  imported  wool  (or  its  equiva- 
lent), we  believe  a healthy  reaction  in  the  wool  interest  will  soon  be 
inaugurated,  enabling  us  to  produce  our  own  wool  independent  of  for- 
eign countries. 

This  protection  granted,  and  our  enormous  overproduction  of  grain 
will  be  arrested,  by  diminishing  the  number  engaged  in  its  production. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  the  cattle  and  swine  interests;  a curtailing  of 
the  production  of  each  to  the  extent  of  10  per  cent,  will  cause  a revival 
of  trade  all  over  our  country.  We  don’t  need  such  a production  of 
grain  and  of  cattle  and  hogs — it  is  the  bane  of  our  country.  We  do 
need  an  increase  of  our  wool  production — an  increase  of  100  per  cent, 
at  least.  The  want  of  this  increase  is  the  great  curse  of  our  country 
to-day,  and  the  prime  cause  of  the  stagnation  of  trade  throughout  the 
land.  By  the  acts  of  an  unwise  Congress,  the  American  wool  producers 
are  driven  to  grain  raising  and  meat  producing,  causing  an  overproduc- 
tion and  depression  in  prices  of  all  agricultural  products.  When  the  agri- 
cultural interest  of  this  nation  is  prostrate  the  whole  country,  is  paral- 
yzed. Let  our  legislators  encourage  woo]  raising  to  the  extent  of  a fair 
division  of  agricultural  labor,  increasing  wool  production,  and  curtail- 
ing the  production  of  grain  and  provisions,  and  all  our  agricultural  in- 
terests will  be  booming,  and  manufacturing  and  commercial  interests 
will  prosper  accordingly. 

Believing  that  these  desirable  results  can  be  thus  brought  about,  this 
association  respectfully  suggests  for  your  consideration  the  propriety  of 
recommending  the  following  changes  in  the  duties  on  imported  wools, 
in  the  forthcoming  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  viz : 

That  in  Schedule  K (wool  and  woolens),  section  357,  we  suggest  that 
you  recommend  all  imports  in  this  class,  under  the  value  of  27  cents  per 
pound,  the  duty  be  increased  from  the  present  rate  of  10  cents  per 
pound  to  12  cents  per  pound.  Likewise,  also,  that  the  same  changes  be 
recommended  in  all  importations  of  the  second  class.  And  that  all 
wools  of  the  first  and  second  class  of  the  valuation  of  27  cents  per  pound 
and  upward,  the  duty  be  increased  from  12  to  15  cents  per  pound. 

And  further,  in  class  third,  we  suggest  a change  from  2J  to  4 cents 
on  wools  under  a valuation  of  12  cents  per  pound ; over  12  cents,  an 
increase  from  5 to  8 cents  per  pound. 

This  change  proposed  is  about  equivalent  to  an  average  increase  of  5 
cents  per  pound  only — an  increase  that  will  at  no  time  be  a burden  to 
our  people,  and  will,  we  believe,  act  as  a stimulant  that  will,  in  the  near 
futfire,  cause  such  an  increase  in  the  home  production  as  to  materially 
cheapen  the  price  of  home-grown  wool. 

Hoping  these  suggestions  may  commend  themselves  to  your  judg- 
ment, this  association,  this  day  (September  26,  1885)  adopt  and  order 
forwarded  the  above  address. 

J.  M.  STEVENSON, 

President . 

J.  E.  McNAEY, 

Secretary. 


S.  Ex.  72 15 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


226 


[Reply  of  Ohio  wool-growers  to  Secretary  Manning’s  circular,  wool.] 

Booms  of  Ohio  Wool-hrowers’  Association, 

Quaker  City,  Ohio,  November  3,  1885. 

Dear  Sir  : Your  circular  letter  addressed  to  this  association,  through 
its  president,  some  time  ago,  was  duly  received,  and  at  our  semi-annual 
meeting,  held  September  2,  1885,  on  Ohio  State  Fair  grounds,  it  was 
unanimously  decided  to  comply  with  your  request,  and  the  following 
committee  were  appointed,  in  as  many  different  sections  of  the  State,  to 
get  the  actual  cost  of  producing  a pound  of  wool,  viz:  David  Harpster, 
Pitt,  Ohio,  president;  W.  N.  Cowden,  Quaker  City,  Ohio,  secretary; 
Calvin  Caswell,  Castalia,  Ohio ; E.  J.  Hiatt,  Chester  Hill,  Ohio ; John 
Pow,  Salem,  Ohio,  and  S.  H.  Todd,  Wakeman,  Ohio. 

This  association  first  desires  to  say,  through  its  committee,  that  it 
deprecates  any  sweeping  changes  in  the  present  tariff  laws  at  the  pres- 
ent time  as  inimical  to  the  business  interests  of  the  country,  now  recov- 
ering from  a world-wide  depression.  Capital  is  now  cautiously  adjusting 
itself  to  the  present  tariff,  and  we  fear  that  general  agitation  would 
further  postpone  the  full  and  complete  revival  of  business. 

There  are  irregularities  that  should  be  corrected,  discriminations  that 
are  unjust,  and  omissions  that  should  be  supplied. 

In  no  schedule  are  these  discriminations  more  patent  than  in  Sched- 
ule K,  wools  and  woolens,  in  which  wools  of  all  classes  and  worsted 
goods,  by  mistake  or  omission,  are  without  sufficient  protection,  as  shown 
clearly  by  the  experience  of  the  past  two  years. 

If  these  and  other  changes  that  will  readily  suggest  themselves  were 
made,  this  association  believes  that  prosperity  would  speedily  return  to 
all  the  industries  of  the  country. 

To  your  first  question,  u Should  duties  on  wool  be  specific  or  specific 
and  ad  valorem?”  we  answer  in  general,  specific. 

The  wool-growers  know  that  they  have  suffered  greatly  in  the  past 
by  undervaluations  of  invoices,  which  ad  valorem  rates  of  duty  offer 
temptations  to  attempt;  and  we  highly  appreciate  the  efforts  which  you 
as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  have  made,  and  the  success  attending  those 
efforts  to  lessen  this  evil,  and  we  pledge  you  all  the  assistance  in  our 
power  to  secure  honest  valuations  of  imported  wool ; at  the  same  time 
we  are  not  certain  that  specific  rates  of  duty  alone  would  be  an  adequate 
remedy,  and  our  doubts  are  increased  when  we  recollect  that  the  frauds 
so  largely  practiced  during  the  past  two  years  were  under  a tariff  wholly 
specific.  ' 

If  specific  rates  of  duty  are  adopted,  that  they  may  be  just  and  equal 
to  the  growers  of  all  classes  of  wool  there  must  be  a rate  for  each  class ; 
otherwise  a rate  that  would  sufficiently  protect  the  lower  grades  would 
afford  inadequate  protection  to  the  higher  grades,  and  a rate  that  would 
sufficiently  protect  the  higher  grades  would  absolutely  prohibit  the 
lower  grades. 

With  too  many  rates  of  specific  duty  a new  danger  would  arise,  and 
the  temptation  to  undervalue  would  be  greater  than  under  the  com- 
pound rate  of  the  tariff  of  1867.  We  readily  admit,  however,  that  these 
supposed  results  of  a wholly  specific  rate  of  duty  could  be  readily 
avoided  by  the  employment  of  expert  judges  of  the  value  of  the  various 
kinds  of  wool. 

In  answer  to  your  second  question,  u What  is  the  cost  of  producing  a 
pound  of  wool  in  Ohio?”  your  committee  would  say  that  they  have 
taken  the  utmost  care  to  obtain  a full  and  satisfactory  answer  to  the 
question  from  all  parts  of  the  State. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


227 


We  addressed  circular  letters  and  had  consultations  with  the  most 
prominent  flock-masters  of  the  State,  and  received  answers  from  over 
one  hundred  growers  of  the  different  kinds,  giving  the  actual  cost  of 
producing  a pound  of  well- washed  wool  of  the  class  known  to  commerce 
as  X and  XX  Ohio  wool,  and  also  middle  and  combing  wool  is  included, 
as  the  cost  of  each  is  the  same  as  Merino  X and  XX. 

The  average  of  one  hundred  and  more  answers  makes  the  cost  of  pro- 
ducing a pound  of  wool  in  Ohio  39J  cents. 

■We  beg  your  attention  to  the  following  explanations  and  observa- 
tions on  the  above-named  average  price  of  producing  a pound  of  wool. 

To  secure  uniformity  the  estimates  were  all  based  on  6 pounds  of  wool 
per  head  of  the  above-named  grade.  Six  pounds  per  head,  as  is  well 
known,  is  above  the  average  production  of  the  State,  but  is  the  amount 
produced  by  all  growers  who  breed  and  feed  with  care  and  skill.  We 
did  not  propose  to  ask  you  to  recommend  a tariff  that  would  protect, 
careless  or  improvident  flock-masters,  who  do  not  protect  themselves 
by  careful  breeding  and  feeding. 

The  wool  produced  by  this  latter  class  costs  very  much  more  than  the 
wool  included  in  this  estimate. 

The  calculations  were  made  on  the  average  cost  of  grain,  hay,  labor, 
rate  of  interest,  and  price  of  land  for  the  past  ten  years  in  different 
sections  of  Ohio. 

These  itemized  answers  to  our  circular  letter  piove  one  thing  here- 
tofore disputed,  viz,  that  wool  is  produced  as  cheaply  on  high-priced 
land  as  on  low-priced  land.  Tor  example,  Erie  County  growers,  on  land 
valued  at  $100  and  over  per  acre,  estimate  the  cost  of  a pound  of  wool 
nearly  the  same  as  the  growers  in  the  hilly  counties  of  Southeastern 
Ohio,  where  land  is  valued  at  but  little  over  one-half  as  much  per  acre. 
The  increased  productiveness  of  these  lands,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  system  of  mixed  husbandry  practiced,  accounts  for  this  fact,  and 
points  to  the  further  fact  that  as  soon  as  western  ranchmen  are  confined, 
as  they  ought  to  be,  to  lands  owned  by  themselves,  the  cheapest  wool 
grown  in  the  United  States  will  be  grown  in  that  section,  so  obviously 
designed  by  Providence  for  sheep  husbandry,  and  now  producing  the 
wool  known  to  commerce  as  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  West  Virginia  X 
and  XX  wool. 

We  would  further  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  stud  flocks  are  not 
included  in  the  above  estimate.  In  these  flocks  great  care,  skill,  and 
large  amounts  of  capital  are  employed,  which,  if  included  in  the  within 
estimate,  would  greatly  enhance  the  average  price  of  producing  a pound 
of  wool  in  Ohio  ; and  yet  these  very  flocks  might  properly  be  included, 
as  by  supplying  breeding  stock  of  the  best  blood,  they  have  enabled 
the  average  grower  to  get  more  wool  and  mutton  per  head,  and  thus 
make  the  cost  of  producing  a pound  of  wool  in  Ohio  cheaper. 

We  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  well-known  fact  that  wool 
under  the  tariff  of  1883  sold  in  Ohio  at  an  average  below  30  ceuts 
per  pound,  showing  that  the  wool-growers,  if  the  above  calculation  is 
correct,  have  sustained  a loss  of  fully  10  cents  per  pound  on  every  pound 
sold,  or  60  cents  per  head  on  every  sheep  kept.  In  other  words,  the 
wool-grower  sells  his  grain,  hay,  pasture,  and  labor  at  60  cents  per 
head  less  than  market  price. 

How  long  can  or  will  the  flock-master  stand  this  loss  ? It  is  be- 
lieved by  every  member  of  the  committee  and  by  every  intelligent 
flock-master  of  Ohio  that  the  large  decrease  of  the  two  past  years  in 
number  of  sheep  (the  decrease  would  have  been  larger  if  sheep  could 


228 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


have  been  sold  at  any  price)  and  the  larger  decrease  in  pounds  of  wool 
will  continue  until  we  are  put  upon  an  equality  in  the  markets  created 
by  our  industry,  skill,  and  taxation  with  the  Australian  and  South 
American  grower.  Such  would  only  be  simple  justice,  and  no  govern- 
ment should  ask  its  citizens  and  supporters  to  take  anything  less. 

We  need  not  remind  you  that  this  was  the  pledge  of  the  Chicago 
platform,  viz,  that  the  amount  of  protection  u should  equal  the  cost  of 
labor,  &c.,  existing  between  this  and  other  countries.” 

Ohio  still  insists  on  the  restoration  of  the  tariff  of  1867  or  equivalent 
specific  rates  of  duty,  experience  having  proved  that  wool-growing  was 
barely  profitable  under  that  tariff*. 

We  favor  a retention  of  the  present  classification  of  wools,  and  would 
respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  two  classes  of  wool,  viz, 
very  coarse  and  very  fine,  or  XXX,  have  never  had  sufficient  protection 
even  under  the  tariff  of  1867.  An  increase  of  tariff  on  these  grades  of 
wool  and  the  securing  of  our  own  markets  to  the  American  wool-grower 
will,  in  a decade  or  two,  enable  the  United  States  to  produce  her  own 
wool,  and  thus  render  her,  in  peace  and  in  war,  independent  of  foreign 
nations,  materially  help  to  keep  a healthy  balance  of  trade  in  our  favor, 
and  bring  untold  blessings  to  those  to  come  after  us. 

Hoping  that  the  inclosed  may  assist  you  in  making  suitable  recom- 
dations  to  the  approaching  session  of  Congress,  we  are, 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

DAVID  HARPSTER, 

W.  X.  COWDEN, 

CALVIN  CASWELL, 

JOHN  POW, 

S.  H.  TODD, 

Committee. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. 

Lakehome,  Mount  Vernon,  Ohio,  November  4, 1885. 

At  the  request  of  the  above  committee  I have  read  the  above  paper 
and  exhibits.  I fully  concur  in  the  conclusions  they  have  reached,  with 
this  qualification,  to  wit : The  estimated  cost  of  producing  wool  is,  in 
my  judgment,  under  or  less  than  the  actual  cost. 

C.  DELANO, 

President  National  Wool- Grower  s'*  Association. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  229 

Statement  of  David  Earpster , Wyandolt  County  who  keeps  from  6,000  to  10,000  sheep 
without  any  shelter,  for  keeping  1,000  sheep. 

100  tons  hay,  no  charge  for  feeding $800  00 

3,500  bushels  corn,  no  charge  for  feeding,  at  30  cents 1, 050  00 

Pasture,  seven  months,  at  10  cents  per  mouth 700  00 

Trimming  and  keeping  down  foot-rot 100  00 

Shearing  and  washing 80  00 

Interest  on  cost  of  sheep,  at  $2.50  per  head .. 150  00 


2,880  00 


One-half  of  these  sheep  are  fat  sheep  and  fed  for  market,  and  I credit  for 

increase  in  value  on  500  sheep 250  00 

Credit  for  increase  over  losses  on  raising  500  sheep 150  00 


400  00 

Total  net  cost  of  1,000  sheep 2, 480  00 

6,000  pounds  wool  (6  pounds  per  sheep),  costs 2, 480  00 

One  pound  costs  41.33  cents. 


Estimate  of  M.  J.  Caswell,  of  Erie  County,  Ohio. 

For  100  sheep,  1£  pounds  of  hay  per  day  for  one  hundred  and  fifty  days,  11 

tons,  at  $9 $99  00 

Corn,  five  months,  at  $10  per  month 50  00 

Pasture,  seven  months,  at  $12.50 . 87  50 

For  coarse  fodder .’ ; 20  00 

Interest  on  capital  in  sheep 14  00 

For  care  of  sheep,  salt,  washing,  and  shearing,  &c 26  00 


296  50 
Cr. 

By  average  increase 60  00 


Cost  of  600  pounds  of  wool 236  50 

Cost  of  1 pound,  39.41  cents. 


Statement  of  W.  W.  and  J.  H.  McCall,  of  Guernsey  County,  from  actual  weights  of  hay 

and  grain. 

We  have  by  actual  experiment  proved  that  a sheep  will  eat  from  300  to  450  pounds 
of  hay,  according  to  size,  average  375  pounds  per  winter  and  1 bushel  of  grain. 

Counting  hay,  at  $8  per  ton,  one  sheep  will  eat  in  hay $1  50 

Grain 50 

Grass,  10  cents  per  month 70 

Care,  25  cents  per  head *25 

Interest  on  investment  at  $2.50  per  head 57 


3 12 

CR. 

Increase  per  head  .. 60 


Six  pounds  of  wool  costs 2 52 

One  pound  costs . . 42 


230  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Statement  of  J.  M.  S.  W Willem,  of  Londonderry,  Ohio. 


100  sheep,  valued  at  $3  per  head,  $300,  at  7 per  cent $21  00 

Decrease  of  value,  owing  to  age,  12|  per  cent 37  50 

Decrease  by  death  from  other  causes,  2 per  cent 6 00 

Summer  pasture,  seven  months,  at  12-J  cents 84  00 

Grain  feed,  one-half  bushel  oats  and  corn  per  day 31  87 

Hay,  10  tons,  at  $7  50  75  00 

Rent  of  buildings  for  shelter,  per  year 12  00 

Attendance 25  00 

Washing  and  shearing 6 50 

298  87 

Other  labor  balanced  by  manure. 

40  lambs,  at  $1.75  per  head 70  00 


600  pounds  of  wool  cost 228  87 


One  pound  costs  38.14  cents. 


[.Dike  Brothers,  wool.’] 


Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 


New  York,  August  5,  1885. 


Dear  Sir  : Your  printed  form  at  hand  requesting  our  ideas  as  to  the 
desirableness  of  changes,  &c.,  in  our  tariff  laws. 

In  our  article  of  wool  at  present  all  is  specific,  and  we  think  the 
law  fairly  simple  and  able  of  honest  construction,  but  we  doubt  not 
but  that  evasions  of  the  law  have  taken  place  through  loose  methods, 
&c.  The  writer  has  acted  as  merchant  appraiser  in  connection  with  Mr. 
A.  J.  Perry,  the  general  appraiser  here,  in  many  cases,  therefore  we 
feel  as  though  we  had  a fair  knowledge  of  all  the  questions  at  issue  in 
wool.  Our  attention  was  called  to  the  large  increase  of  so-called  waste 
importations,  and  at  our  suggestion  the  assistant  appraiser,  Mr.  Bard- 
well,  took  the  matter  in  hand,  and  we  think  it  was  largely  due  to  his 
efforts  that  Botany  waste  was  raised  from  one  duty  to  double  duty. 
There  is  sure  to  be  some  trouble  from  time  to  time  on  the  waste  impor- 
tations, and  constant  care  required  in  that  line,  but  we  think  the  fair 
rulings,  if  carried  out  at  all  the  ports  alike,  will  make  these  importations 
in  the  future  honest,  which  we  hardly  think  was  the  case  in  the  past. 
If  you  will  look  at  the  imports  of  waste  at  Boston  or  Philadelphia, 
as  well  as  New  York,  we  think  you  will  find  the  growth  was  large  from 
a small  beginning,  until  some  year  or  more  ago,  when  it  was  looked  af- 
ter more  carefully.  We  think  your  appraisers  should  be  requested  to 
look  at  all  waste  importations  with  care. 

. Again,  the  question  of  Scotch  white  Highland  wool : We  have  little 
doubt  but  that  considerable  frauds  were  practiced  on  the  Government, 
but  how  to  arrive  at  them  we  cannot  say  unless  detectives  were  put 
at  work  on  the  other  side  to  find  the  cost;  even  then  it  would  be  hard 
to  do.  We  think  a firm  stand  on  the  part  of  the  Government  will  scare 
off'  all  of  that  business.  We  should  say  that  the  Government  should  fix 
a uniform  rate  of  commission  to  be  allowed  as  a charge;  with  regard  to 
charges  for  bagging,  draft,  &c.,  there  are  many  things  which  were  allowed, 
so  that  Scotch  wool,  which  long  hung  on  the  line  of  5§<Z.  to  could  be 
made  by  extra  commission,  draft,  bags,  &c.,  to  oue  charge  or  another;  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


231 


tricky  importer  got  in  a large  invoice,  at  low  duty  rates  while  the  straight- 
forward one  would  not  attempt  it — a commission  of  4 per  cent,  as  brok- 
erage, &c in  fact,  all  sorts  of  things,  such  as  per  cent,  off  for  cash,  &c. 
You  doubtless  know  all  about  it  before  this  as  you  have  superior  informa- 
tion to  ours  ; yet  we  know  enough  to  convince  us  of  the  truth  of  some 
wrong  doings,  in  fact,  we  think  very  heavy  ones.  So  much  for  the  Scotch 
wool,  which  is  yet  about  in  the  same  shape,  as  the  prices  is  about  6d.  now. 

With  regard  to  Russian  wool,  there  is  some  mystery;  a ruling  which 
went  away  back  allows  the  buying  in  Russia  of  unwashed  low-priced 
wool  and  its  manipulation  there;  that  is,  it  was  sorted  and  scoured  and 
sent  here  in  the  scoured  state  and  duties  levied  at  that  new  condition. 
This  abuse  was  one  of  long  sanction,  but  during  the  past  year  vast 
quantities  of  Donskoi  wool  have  been  imported  at  low-duty  rate,  viz, 
2J  cents,  or  which  was  at  a cost  in  Russia  of  under  12  cents.  The  wool 
sold  here  at  a range  of  from  20  to  24,  which  would  show  a very  large 
profit;  at  the  same  time  wool  was  very  depressed  in  price  and  ordinary 
importers  and  dealers  were  incurring  losses.  We  do  not  know  the  full 
story  but  we  think  you  can  find  it  out  some  way,  viz,  the  why  and 
wherefore  of  the  ruling  which  allowed  the  manipulation,  viz,  the  chang- 
ing in  Russia  by  scouring,  grading,  &c.,  when  such  a thing  is  not  allowed 
in  any  other  part  of  the  world  or  in  any  other  sort  of  wool. 

The  carpet  kings  of  America  are  very  powerful;  have  grown  so  during 
the  past  twenty  years.  Their  success  has  been  marvelous;  possibly  the 
favoritism  of  the  Government  may  have  had  something  to  do  with  it  all. 
The  statement  is  made  that  we  grow  here  no  carpet  wool,  therefore  it 
must  be  imported  and  it  should  be  let  in  at  lowest  price  possible.  All 
that  is  a fallacy.  We  do  grow  considerable  carpet  wool  in  this  country; 
and  again  were  the  laws  enforced  all  would  suffer  inconvenience  of  them 
alike. 

We  suggest,  therefore,  a rigid  examination  as  to  the  enforcement  of  the 
duty  on  carpet  wools,  as  it  is  in  that  class  that  most  of  the  irregularities 
have  occurred.  We  think  the  laws  are  now  simple  enough,  if  only  in- 
telligently enforced  and  with  strictest  impartiality.  We  have  heard 
that  very  large  increase  of  imports  from  Bradford  have  been  going  on 
at  a period,  say,  three  to  four  years  back,  and  coming  down  to  the  present 
time,  in  all  sorts  of  woolens,  say  such  as  worsted  and  cloths.  We  think 
a sharp  lookout  might  find  something  loose  there  or  here  in  these  ma- 
terials; in  fact,  from  all  places  of  English  manufacturing,  smuggling  or 
its  similitude,  undervaluation,  we  think  would  not  go  against  the  grain 
of  an  Englishman,  or  an  American  even ; and  we  think  a vast  deal  of 
that  thing  has  been  going  on  in  woolens  much  more  than  in  wool. 

As  to  the  present  law  we  are  quite  satisfied  with  it,  but  not  with  its 
execution.  We  should  not  like  to  see  any  agitation  for  a change  at 
present;  we  have  had  too  much  of  that  already  in  the  years  past.  We 
think  some  time  not  very  far  distant  the  tariff  will  be  largely  reduced, 
and  without  disturbance,  by  natural  course  of  events. 

Yours  truly, 


PIKE  BROTHERS. 


232  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


SPECIAL  AGENTS  TICHENOR  & TINGLE. 

Treasury  Department,  November  10, 1885. 
Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir : Although  inquiry  No.  20  of  your  recent,  confidential  circular  calls 
for  a statement  covering  the  tariff  legislation  upon  wool  and  its  results 
since  1860  only,  we  have  thought  information  on  that  subject  embracing 
the  legislation  prior  to  that  date  would  be  of  value.  We  therefore  re- 
spectfully submit  the  following : 

Sheep  were  brought  into  this  country  as  early  as  1610,  and  although 
these,  as  well  as  importations  made  for  a long  time  thereafter,  were  of 
animals  of  inferior  breed,  yet  such  attention  was  given  to  their  breeding 
that  the  yield  of  domestic  wool  was  sufficient  for  the  production  of  such 
woolen  manufactures,  mainly  household,  as  were  most  largely  con- 
sumed by  the  colonists  for  a long  time  prior  to  the  Revolution. 

Laws  to  encourage  sheep-raising  were  enacted  in  Massachusetts  in 
1645,  and  as  early  as  1676  it  was  written  that  “New  England  abounds 
with  sheep.” 

Within  the  seventeenth  century  the  spinning,  carding,  and  weaving 
of  wool  and  the  fulling  and  dressing  of  cloths  had  been  introduced  in 
all  of  the  old  Colonies.  Much  interest  was  taken  in  the  improvement  of 
the  breed  of  domestic  sheep  and  growth  of  wool  for  market  as  early  as 
the  beginning  of  the  present  century.  Animals  of  the  best  races  and 
most  superior  blood  had  been  imported  in  large  numbers,  were  widely 
distributed  and  skillfully  bred,  and  sheep  husbandry  had  become  a fa- 
vorite and  profitable  pursuit  in  this  country  previous  to  our  second  war 
with  Great  Britain.  So  successful  and  promising,  indeed,  had  the  busi- 
ness then  become,  that  fine  merino  rams  were  sold  for  as  much  as  $1,000 
each,  and  wool  advanced  from  $1  per  pound  in  1807  to  as  high  as  $2.50 
per  pound  in  1814. 

The  census  of  1810  did  not  show  the  number  of  sheep  or  the  quantity 
and  value  of  the  wool  products  at  that  time.  It  appears,  however, 
from  a report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  Congress,  made  in 
Januarjr,  1814,  that  according  to  an  estimate  of  Mr.  Tench  Coxe,  based 
upon  the  official  returns,  there  were  from  13,000,000  to  14,000,000  pounds 
of  wool  produced  in  the  United  States  during  that  census  year. 

Mr.  J.  R.  Dodge,  the  statistician  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  is 
authority  for  the  statement  that  there  was  no  industrial  interest  so  prom- 
inent in  this  country  during  the  ten  years  preceding  the  war  of  1812  as 
manufactures  of  wool,  and  that  the  value  of  such  reported  product 
amounted  in  1810  to  $25,608,788.  Upon  the  basis  of  population  at  that 
time,  this  was  equal  to  $3.53  ^ per  capita.  During  this  remarkable  period 
of  prosperty  in  manufactures  of  wool  and  in  sheep  husbandry  wool 
was  on  the  free  list,  and  the  duties  upon  woolen  goods  ranged  from  5 
per  cent,  to  17 J per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

The  act  of  July  1,  1812,  laid  an  additional  duty  of  100  per  cent,  upon 
the  permanent  duties  then  imposed  by  law,  to  continue  in  force  so  long 
as  the  United  States  was  engaged  in  war  with  Great  Britain  and  for 
one  year  after  the  conclusion  of  peace. 

In  consequence  of  heavy  importations  of  woolen  manufactures,  and 
of  the  general  depression  of  trade  following  the  peace  of  1815,  the 
woolen  manufacturers  of  the  country,  who  claimed  that  they  employed 
a fixed  capital  of  $12,000,000  and  100,000  hands,  producing  goods  of 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


233 


the  value  of  $19,000,000  annually,  memorialized  Congress  for  an  increase 
of  duties  on  manufactures  of  wool. 

By  the  general  tariff  act  of  April  27,  1816,  all  manufactures  of  wool, 
or  of  which  wool  was  the  material  of  chief  value,  not  otherwise  provided 
for,  were  made  dutiable  at  25  per  ceut.  ad  valorem  until  June  30,  1819, 
and  thereafter  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Ready-made  clothing  and 
hats  and  caps  of  wool  were  provided  for  at  30  per  cent,  ad  valerem,  and 
certain  knit  goods  at  from  20  per  cent,  to  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Wool 
disappeared  from  the  “free  list’7  under  this  act  and  became  dutiable  at 
15  per  cent,  ad  valorem  as  an  unenumerated  article. 

On  the  28th  of  January,  1822,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  made  a 
special  report  to  Cougress  showing  the  importations  of  wool  into  and  ex- 
portations from  the  United  States  during  the  years  1817,  1818,  1819, 
1820,  and  the  first  nine  months  of  1821,  as  follows  : 


1817. 

1818. 

1819. 

1820. 

1821 
(9  mos). 

IMPORTS. 

Pounds  __ _ _ __ 

8,  872 
$8,  072 

• 

1,  500 
$226 

2,  892 
$1,  886 

106,  768 
$24,  955 

386, 955 
$96,  079 

V alue  

EXPORTS. 

Pounds.- 

7,  081 
$3,  540 

18,  860 
$11,  242 

3,  465 
$1,386 

900 

Value 

$900 

In  1820  the  value  of  reported  manufactures  of  wool  in  the  United 
States  was  only  $4,413,068,  equal  lo  45.7  cents  per  capita,  being  less  by 
$21,195,720  than  in  1810.  In  1824  the  price  of  clothing  wool  had  de- 
clined to  about  63  cents  for  fine,  45  cents  for  medium,  and  33  cents  for 
coarse. 

Although  wool  became  subject  to  duty  at  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  as 
a non-enumerated  article,  under  the  act  of  April  27, 1816,  it  was  not 
until  the  act  of  May  22,  1824,  that  it  it  was  made  dutiable  by  name. 

By  this  act  unmanufactured  wool,  the  actual  value  of  which  at  the 
place  whence  imported  did  not  exceed  10  cents  per  pound,  was  made 
dutiable  at  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem  until  June  1,  1825  ; thereafter  at  25 
percent,  ad  valorem  until  June  1,  1826,  and  thereafter  at  30  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

Under  this  act  carpets  were  subject  to  duty  at  20  to  50  cents  per 
square  yard ; worsted  stuffs,  shawls,  &c.,  at  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; and 
other  manufactures  of  wool  at  from  20  per  cent,  to  33  per  cent,  ad  valo- 
rem. 

The  average  prices  of  domestic  wool — fine,  medium,  and  coarse — while 
this  act  was  in  force  were  as  follows  : 1824,  47  cents ; 1825,  43  cents  ; 
1826,  40  cents ; 1827,  35  cents,  and  1828,  37  cents. 

The  value  of  the  importations  from  1821  to  1828‘was  as  follows: 


Year. 

Manufact- 
ures of 
wool. 

Unmanu- 

factured 

wool. 

1821 

$7,  238,  954 
11,752,  595 

7,  953,  451 
5,  509,  424 

11,  392,  264 
8, 431,  974 

8,  742, 701 
8,  532,  960 

1822 

$387,  312 
340,  956 
171,  345 
569,  476 
449,  725 
408,  527 
491, 945 

1823  

1824  

1825  

1826 

1827 

1828  

234  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

The  act  of  May  19,  1828,  imposed  upon  all  unmanufactured  wool  tbe 
very  high  duty  of  4 cents  per  pound  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem  until 
June  30,  1829,  and  thereafter  annually  an  additional  duty  of  5 per  cent, 
ad  valorem  until  such  ad  valorem  duty  should  reach  50  per  cent.  On 
low-priced  wool  this  rate  was  equal  to  100  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Wool 
on  the  skin  was  made  dutiable  at  the  same  rate  as  other  imported  wool. 

The  duties  on  manufactures  of  wool  were  also  increased  by  this  act, 
the  rates  being  fixed  at  40  per  cent,  to  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  ex- 
cept upon  knit  goods  and  blankets,  which  were  made  dutiable  at  35 
per  cent.,  and  carpets,  which  paid  30  to  70  cents  per  square  yard. 

This  tariff  remained  in  force  until  1832.  The  value  of  importations 
of  wool  and  woolens  during  this  period  was — 


Year. 

Manufact- 
ured wool. 

Unmanu- 

factured 

wool. 

1829  

$6, 881,  489 
5,  800,  283 
13,  093,  027 
10,  379,  883 

$239,  882 
96,  853 
1,  288,  909 
698,  721 

1830  

1831 

1832  

The  value  of  the  reported  manufactures  of  wool  in  the  United  States 
in  1830  was  $14,528,166,  equal  to  88J  cents  per  capita,  and  about 
$11^000,000  less  than  in  1810.  The  average  price  of  domestic  wool — 
fine,  medium,  and  coarse — was  as  follows : 1829, 34  cents;  1830,  46  cents ; 
1831, 61  cents;  1832,  47  cents.  A convention  of  the  principal  manufact- 
urers in  the  United  States,  held  in  October,  1831,  estimated  the  pro- 
duction of  domestic  wool  for  that  year  at  50,000,000  pounds. 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  July  14,  1832,  unmanufactured 
wool  of  the  value  at  the  place  of  expoi  tation  not  exceeding  8 cents  per 
pound,  was  admitted  free  of  duty.  If,  however,  any  fine  wool  was  im- 
ported mixed  with  dirt  or  other  material  whereby  its  value  was  re- 
duced to  8 cents  per  pound  or  under,  it  was  to  be  appraised  at  such 
price  as  it  would  have  cost  if  not  so  mixed.  All  wool  exceeding  8 cents 
per  pound  in  value  was  dutiable  at  4 cents  per  pound,  and  40  per  cent, 
ad  valorem.  Woolen  yarn  was  dutiable  at  the  same  rates  as  wool,  and 
worsted  yarn  paid  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Manufactures  of  wool  not 
otherwise  provided  for  paid  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  certain  worsted 
stuffs,  shawls,  &c.,  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

A slight  reduction  was  made  in  the  rates  on  knit  goods  and  blankets. 

The  above  mentioned  provision  for  the  free  admission  of  wool  valued 
at  not  exceeding  8 cents  per  pound  was  continued  by  the  act  of  March 
2,  1833,  while  all  wool  above  that  value  was  made  dutiable  at  4 cents 
per  pound,  and  38  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  the  latter  duty  to  be  gradually 
reduced  to  26  per  cent,  ad  valorem  in  1842.  The  duty  on  woolen  yarn 
was  made  the  same  as  on  wool,  and  that  on  worsted  yarns  remained  at 
20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  duty  on  manufactures  of  wool  and  on 
ready-made  clothing  was  reduced  by  the  same  act  6 per  cent,  ad  valo- 
rem, and  a further  gradual  reduction  provided  for.  A slight  reduction 
in  the  rates  on  blankets  was  also  made. 

The  reported  value  of  manufactures  of  wool  in  the  United  States  iq 
1840  was  $20,696,999,  equal  to  82.4  cents  per  capita. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


235 


The  average  prices  of  domestic  wool,  fine,  medium,  and  coarse,  for 
the  period  during  which  these  tariff  acts  were  in  force,  were  as  follows  : 


Cents. 


Cents 


1833 

1834 

1835 

1836 
1837, 


£0 

51 

55 

59 

53 


1838 

1839 

1840 

1841 

1842 


42 
49 
41 

43 
37 


The  value  of  the  importations  of  woolen  manufactures  and  raw  wool 
during  this  period  was  as  follows : 


Year. 

Manufactures 
of  wool. 

Unmanufact- 
ured wool. 

Year. 

Manufactures 
of  wool. 

Unmanufact- 
ured wool. 

1833  

$13, 262, 509 
7,  379, 328 
11,  285, 146 
14,  410,  991 
5, 150,  026 

$240, 892 
317, 925 
1,  088,  277 
1,  270, 126 
893,  873 

1838 

$7,  579,  465 
11,  549,  847 
9,  071, 184 
11,  001,  939 
8,  375, 725 

$532, 971 
699,  538 
846, 076 
1,  091,  953 
797,  382 

Ig34  

1839 

1835 

1840 

1836  

1841 

1837  

1842.. 

According  to  a report  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  on  sheep 
husbandry  in  the  United  States,  a canvass  of  flocks  was  made  in  1836 
by  Messrs.  Benton  and  Barry,  from  which  it  appeared  that  the  number 
of  sheep  in  the  States  at  that  time  was  12,897,638 ; their  product  of  wool 
being  41,917,334  pounds,  valued  at  $21,168,246. 

In  1840  the  number  of  sheep  in  the  country,  as  shown  by  the  census 
returns,  was  19,311,374,  and  the  production  of  wool  35, 802, il4  pounds. 

The  act  of  August  30,  1842,  imposed  a duty  on  coarse  unmanufact- 
ured wool  of  the  value  of  7 cents  per  pound,  or  under,  at  the  last  port 
or  place  whence  exported  to  the  United  States,  of  5 per  cent,  ad  valo- 
rem, and  on  all  other  unmanufactured  wool  of  3 cents  per  pound  and 
30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  It  was  also  provided  that  wool  of  different 
qualities  imported  in  the  same  bale  should  all  pay  duty  at  the  rate  im- 
posed upon  the  highest  quality  in  such  bale.  Similar  provisions  were 
made  as  in  the  previous  tariff  as  to  wool  mixed  with  dirt  to  reduce  the 
value,  and  as  to  wool  imported  on  the  skin. 

The  duties  on  woolen  and  worsted  yarns,  worsted  stuffs,  shawls,  &c., 
were  fixed  at  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; on  manufactures  of  wool,  not 
otherwise  provided  for,  at  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; on  ready-made 
clothing,  at  40  per  cent,  to  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; on  certain  carpets 
and  carpeting,  at  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; on  other  carpets,  30  cents 
to  65  cents  per  square  yard ; and  on  blankets,  15  per  cent,  to  25  per 
cent,  ad  valorem. 

The  average  prices  of  domestic  wool,  fine,  medium,  and  coarse,  from 
1843  to  1846,  were  as  follows : 


Cents. 

1843  29 

1844  37 

1845  36 

1846  , 32 


The  value  of  the  importations  during  this  period  was  as  follows : 


Year. 

Manufactures 
of  wool. 

Unmanufact- 
ured wool. 

1843  

$2,  472, 154 
9,  475,  782 
10,  666, 176 
10,083,  819 

$248,  679 
851,466 
1,689,  794 
1, 134,  226 

1844  

1845 

236  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


The  exemption  from  duty  under  the  acts  of  1832-’33  of  wool  costing 
not  above  8 cents  per  pound,  and  the  admission  under  the  act  of  1842 
of  wool  valued  at  not  above  7 cents  per  pound  at  the  nominal  duty  of 
5 per  cent,  ad  valorem,  were  measures  souglit  by  the  domestic  manu- 
facturers, particularly  of  carpets  and  other  coarse  fabrics,  and  were  con- 
ceded by  the  wool-growTers  in  the  belief  that  the  wools  thus  admitted 
would  not  compete  at  all  seriously  with  any  considerable  proportion  of 
the  wools  grown  in  this  country,  and  that  the  provisions  in  those  acts 
for  wools  of  higher  value  would  afford  ample  defense  against  injurious 
competition  from  foreign  wools  of  the  finer  qualities  such  as  were  chiefly 
produced  in  this  country,  particularly  the  better  wools  from  South 
America. 

It  was  assumed  that  the  word  “fine,”  in  the  acts  of  1832-’33,  suffi- 
ciently indicated  that  it  was  the  intention  of  Congress  that  only  coarse 
wool  of  low  value  was  in  any  case  to  be  admitted  free  of  duty.  It  was 
further  contended  by  the  manufacturers,  and  doubtless  believed  by 
Congress,  that  the  word  u coarse?  in  the  act  of  1842,  would  be  effectual 
in  preventing  the  admission  of  any  fine  wool  at  the  nominal  rate  (5 
per  cent,  ad  valorem)  provided  in  that  act  for  wools  not  exceeding  7 
cents  per  pound. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  these  acts, 
it  turned  out  that  the  provisions  in  regard  to  wools  of  low  value  were 
freely  taken  advantage  of  by  the  introduction  of  large  quantities  of 
fine  wool  free  of  duty  under  the  two  first  acts,  and  at  5 j)er  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem under  the  last.  It  was  stated  in  debate  in  Congress,  pending  the 
consideration  of  the  act  of  1846,  that  such  evasions  were  so  easily  ac- 
complished as  even  to  have  emboldened  certain  speculative  wool  import- 
ers to  export  in  1837-’38  from  this  country  to  South  America  large 
numbers  of  fine  blooded  Merino  bucks,  with  a view  to  growing  finer 
wools  there  to  be  imported  into  the  United  States  free  of  duty. 

These  evasions  are  indicated  by  the  undue  proportion  of  wool  entered 
and  passed  as  of  low  grades  during  the  period  when  the  provisions  re- 
ferred to  were  in  force,  as  per  schedule  following  : 

Importations  of  wool. 


1835. 

1836. 

1837. 

1838. 

1839. 

1840. 

1841. 

1842. 


. Year. 


Free. 


Dutiable. 


Pounds. 


Pounds. 


5,  543,  626 
11,033,810 

9, 480, 195 

6,  551,126 

7,  398,  519 
9,  303,  992 

14,  409,  764 
10,  637,  251 


1,746.771 
1,654,611 
927,  504 
417,  237 
526,  624 
594,  748 
596, 646 
783,  701 


5 per  cent,  ad 
valorem. 


3 c.  per  lb.,  and  30 per 
cent,  ad  valorem. 


1844. 

1845. 


13, 808,  645 
23  382,  097 


199,  763 
450,  943 


It  appears  from  the  debates  in  Congress  in  1846  that  it  was  notorious 
that  the  ad  valorem  duties  on  imported  manufactures  of  wool  under 
these  acts  were  also  largely  evaded. 

Under  the  so-called  “ Walker  tariff”  of  July  30, 1846,  a duty  of  30  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  was  laid  on  all  unmanufactured  wool,  irrespective  of 
quality.  Thibet  and  other  goats’  hair  unmanufactured  were  dutiable  at 
20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  rate  of  duty  imposed  upon  all  manufact- 
ures of  wool,  or  of  which  wool  was  the  component  material  of  chief  value, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


237 


not  otherwise  provided  for,  was  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Woolen  and 
worsted  yarn  and  flannels  were  provided  for  at  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
and  blankets  and  wool  hats  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  This  act  re- 
mained in  force  until  1857. 

The  average  prices  of  domestic  wool — fine,  medium,  and  coarse — dur- 
ing this  period  were  as  follows: 


Tear. 

Cents. 

Tear. 

Cents. 

1847  

39 

1853 

53 

1848  

34 

1854  

44 

1849  

34 

1855  

39 

1850  

39 

1856 

47 

1851 

41 

1857  

46 

1852 

39 

The  number  of  sheep,  as  reported  by  the  census  in  1850,  was  21,723,220? 
producing  52,516,969  pounds  of  wool,  valued  at  $15,755,088.  The  re- 
ported production  in  1855,  as  stated  in  the  Finance  Report  for  1856 
(p.  205),  was  61,560,379  pounds,  valued  at  $23,392,944. 

The  value  of  importations  was  as  follows  : 


Tear. 

Manufact- 
ures of 
wool. 

Unmanu- 

factured 

wool. 

Tear. 

1 

Manufact- 
ures of 
wool. 

Unmanu- 

factured 

wool. 

1847  

$10,  998,  933 
15,  240,  833 
13,  704,  606 
17, 151,  509 
19,  507,  309 
17,  573,  694 

$555, 822 
857,  034 
177,  347 
1,  681,  691 
3,  833, 159 
1,  930,  711 

1853  

$27,  621, 911 
32,  382,  594 
24,  404,  149 
31,  961,  793 
31,  286. 118 

$2, 669, 718 
2,  822, 185 
2, 072, 139 
1,  665,  064 
2, 125,  744 

1848  „ 

1854 

1849  

1855 

1850  

1856 

1851 

1857  

1852 

The  value  of  the  woolen  manufactures  of  the  United  States  in  1850? 
as  shown  by  the  census,  was  $43,542,288,  equal  to  $1.88  per  capita* 
The  valueof  such  manufactures  in  1855,  as  stated  in  the  Finance  Report 
for  1856  (p.  204),  was  $56,406,786,  equal  to  $2.07  per  capita. 

The  act  of  March  3,  1857,  provided  in  effect  that  all  unmanufactured 
wools,  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other  like  animals,  valued  at  20  cents 
per  pound  or  less  at  the  port  of  exportation , should  be  admitted  free  of 
duty,  and  all  valued  at  above  20  cents  per  pound  should  pay  duty  at 
24  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  provisions  of  former  acts  were  renewed 
as  to  wools  imported  in  other  than  the  ordinary  condition,  and  wool 
which  had  been  reduced  in  value  by  the  intentional  admixture  of  dirt  to 
less  than  20  cents  per  pound  was  made  dutiable  at  24  per  cent,  ad 
valorem. 

The  duties  on  manufactures  of  wool  not  otherwise  provided  for,  and 
on  ready- made  clothing,  were  by  this  act  reduced  to  24  per  cent,  ad 
valorem ; on  woolen  and  worsted  yarns  and  hats  of  wool  to  19  per  cent., 
and  on  blankets  to  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

The  value  of  woolen  manufactures  and  of  unmanufactured  wool  im- 
ported during  the  life  of  this  act  were  as  follows : 


Fiscal  year. 

Manufactures. 

Unmanufactured  wool. 

Free. 

Dutiable. 

1858  

$26,486,091 
33,633,716 
36,  299, 149 
29, 126,  706  | 

$4,425,  922 
4,  363, 121 
4,  451,  891 
4,  611,  946 

$179,  315 
81,  833 
391,  494 
134, 548 

1859  

1860  

1861 

238  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  proportion  of  wool  which  paid  duty  under 
this  act  was  very  small  as  compared  with  that  which  came  in  free. 

The  number  of  sheep  in  the  country  in  1860,  as  officially  reported, 
was  22,471,275,  producing  60,264,913  pounds  of  wool.  The  average 
prices  of  domestic  wool,  line,  medium,  and  coarse,  from  1858  to  1861, 
were  as  follows : 


Year. 

Cents. 

Year. 

| Cents 

1858  

37 

I860  

48 

1859  

49 

1861 

39 

The  value  of  woolen  and  worsted  manufactures,  as  reported  by  the 
census  in  1860,  was  $65,596,605,  equal  to  $2.08  per  capita.  * 

By  the  act  of  March  2, 1861,  the  duty  on  all  unmanufactured  wool, 
hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other  like  animals,  valued  at  less  than  18 
cents  per  pound  at  the  last  port  or  place  from  whence  exported  to  the 
United  States,  was  5 per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; exceeding  18  cents  and  not 
exceeding  24  cents  per  pound,  3 cents  per  pound,  and  exceeding  24  cents, 
9 cents  per  pound.  Sheepskins,  raw  or  unmanufactured,  with  the  wool 
on,  washed  or  unwashed,  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Provision  was  also  made  with  respect  to  wool  of  different  qualities 
imported  in  the  same  package,  and  as  to  packages  of  different  quali- 
ties invoiced  at  average  prices. 

The  duties  on  all  manufactures  of  wool  were  largely  increased  under 
this  act  by  a system  of  compound  rates,  avowedly  for  the  purpose  of 
reimbursing  to  the  manufacturers  the  enhanced  cost  of  their  wool 
which  it  was  claimed  would  result  from  the  increase  of  duty  on  the  im- 
ported article. 

The  effect  of  this  act  as  related  to  wool  was  the  admission  of  the 
great  bulk  of  the  importations  at  the  lowest  rate  of  duty,  5 per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

The  values  of  the  importations  of  wool  and  woolen  manufactures 
from  1862  to  1864  were  as  follows : 


1862. 

1863. 

1864. 


Fiscal  years. 


Woolen 

manufactures. 


Wool. 


Pounds. 

$17,  204,  356  I 41,  318,  796 
21,029,174  I 71,917,754 
‘ 36,  377,  517  87, 193,  462 


Value. 

$6. 480.  306 
12,  356,  298 
14,  743,  627 


The  amount  of  domestic  wool  produced  was — 


Pounds. 

1862  106,000,000 

1863  123, 000, 000 

1864  142, 000, 000 


These  amounts  are  for  the  calendar  year. 

The  average  prices  of  domestic  wool,  fine,  medium,  and  coarse,  were 
as  follows : 


Value  in 
currency. 

Equivalent 
in  gold. 

1862 

Cents. 

50 

76 

87 

Oents. 

45 

52 

43 

1863 

1864 : 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


239 


Under  the  act  of  June  30,  1864,  all  numanufactured  wool,  hair  of  the 
alpaca,  goat,  or  other  like  animals,  valued  at  the  last  port  or  place  of 
exportation  to  the  United  States,  exclusive  of  charges  in  such  port,  at 
12  cents  or  less  per  pound,  was  to  pay  duty  at  3 cents  per  pound. 

Exceeding  12  cents  and  not  exceeding  24  cents  per  pound,  6 cents 
per  pound  ; exceeding  24  cents  and  not  exceeding  32  cents  per  pound, 
10  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; exceeding  32  cents 
per  pound,  12  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Restrictive  provisions  respecting  wool,  imported  in  any  other  than 
the  ordinary  conditions,  as  to  the  admixture  of  dirt  to  reduce  the  value, 
and  as  to  the  importation  of  wool  of  different  qualities  in  the  same  pack 
age,  &c.,  were  incorporated  into  this  act.  The  duty  on  sheep-skins 
with  the  wool  on  was  increased  to  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  It  was  also 
provided  that  wool  imported  sco.ured  should  pay  three  times  the  duty 
to  which  it  would  be  subject  if  not  scoured.  A duty  of  3 cents  per 
pound  was  also  imposed  upon  flocks,  waste,  and  shoddy. 

The  duties  on  all  manufactures  of  wool  were  increased  to  an  assumed 
equivalent  of  the  increased  rates  on  wool. 

The  wool-growers  assented  to  and  co  operated  in  securing  the  passage 
of  this  act  in  the  belief  that  the  lower  rate  (3  cents  per  pound)  would 
only  be  applied  to  such  coarse  wools  as  were  known  as  carpet  wools, 
and  that  no  Merino  or  other  “ blood”  wools  would  be  admitted  at  a less 
rate  than  6 cents  per  pound.  It  transpired,  however,  that  in  the  prac- 
tical administration  of  this  law  large  quantities  of  Mestiza  and  other 
fine  wools  were  invoiced,  entered,  and  passed  as  of  the  value  of  12  cents 
or  under  per  pound,  and  therefore  paid  but  3 cents  per  pound  duty. 

The  relative  quantities  of  wool  imported  at  the  several  rates  of  duty 
under  this  act  were  as  follows  : 


1865. 

1866. 

Part  of 
1867. 

At  3 cents  per  pound 

At  6 cents  per  pound 

At  10  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  cent 

At  12  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  cent 

pounds.. 

do 

17,  325, 476 
22, 990, 193 
31,  044 
15,  092 

32,  366, 135 
35,  211,  402 
8,  529 
330,  965 

10, 412, 130 
18,  410,  248 
761, 145 
510,  762 

The  value  of  wool  and  manufactures  of  wool  imported  during  the 
years  named  was  as  follows  : 


Fiscal  year. 

Manufact- 
ures of 
wool. 

Unmanu- 

factured 

wool. 

1865 

$20,  992, 457 
57,  212, 027 
44,  757,  803 

$7,315, 434 
10,  068,  533 
6,  681,  094 

1866 

1867 

The  domestic  production  for  the  calendar  year  was  reported  as  fol  - 
lows: 


Pounds. 

1865  155, 0C0, 000 

1866  160,000,000 

1867  168,000,000 


240  REPORT  OE  THE  SECRETARY  OP  THE  TREASURY. 


The  average  prices  of  domestic  wool-fine,  medium,  and  coarse — were 
as  follows : 


Tear. 

Value  in 
cur- 
rency. 

Equiva- 
lent 
in  gold. 

1865 

Cents. 

80 

61 

52 

Cents. 

51 

43 

37 

1866 

1867 

Dissatisfaction  with  the  operation  of  the  tariff  of  1864,  united  with 
the  decline  in  wool  following  the  close  of  the  war,  inspired  an  organized 
movement  amongst  those  interested  in  sheep  husbandry  to  secure  such 
tariff  legislation  as  it  was  conceived  would  effectually  relieve  domestic 
wool  from  serious  competition  with  foreign  wools  of  similar  character  or 
available  for  like  uses.  This  had  reference  especially  to  mestiza  wools 
of  the  Argentine  Republic  and  good  qualities  from  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope,  upon  which  it  was  proposed  to  fix  such  rates  of  duty  as  would 
practically  prohibit  their  importation. 

The  tendency  of  this  movement  was  to  promote  the  growth  of  the 
protective  sentiment  in  the  agricultural  section  of  the  country,  and  be- 
came so  formidable  that  the  importance  of  establishing  a cordial  under- 
standing between  themselves  and  the  wool-growing  and  sheep  breed- 
ing interests  was  readily  recognized  by  the  wool  manufacturers.  Over- 
tures were  accordingly  made  by  the  associated  manufacturers  to  the 
National  Association  of  Wool- Growers  for  co-operative  action  in  secur- 
ing legislation  in  their  respective  interests,  and  an  alliance  was  formed 
which  resulted  in  the  passage  of  the  wool  tariff  of  March  2,  1867. 

It  is  stated  by  the  secretary  of  the  National  Association  of  Wool 
Manufacturers,  that  “ the  wool  tariff  of  1867  was  passed  in  exact  con- 
formity with  details  jointly  agreed  upon  by  the  executive  committees 
of  the  Wool-Growers  and  Wool-Manufacturers  Associations.” 

An  important  change  made  by  this  act  was  the  division  of  wools  into 
three  classes,  according  to  race  or  blood,  viz : 

1.  Clothing  wool. — Comprising  Merino,  Mestiza,  Metz,  Metis  wools,  or 
other  wools  of  Merino  blood,  immediate  or  remote;  down  clothing  wools, 
and  wools  of  like  character  with  any  of  those  named,  including  such  as 
were  usually  imported  from  Buenos  Ayres,  New  Zealand,  Australia,  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  Russia,  Great  Britain,  Canada,  and  elsewhere,  and  in- 
cluding all  wools  not  described  in  the  two  following  classes. 

2.  Combing  wool.— Comprising  Leicester, Cotswold,  Lincolnshire, down- 
combing  wools,  and  other  like  combing  w^ools  of  English  blood,  and  also 
all  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other  like  animals. 

3.  Carpet  wools  and  other  similar  icools. — Such  as  Donskoi,  native 
South  American,  Cordova,  Valparaiso,  native  Symrna,  and  such  wools 
of  like  character  as  were  usually  imported  from  Turkey,  Greece,  Egypt, 
Syria,  and  elsewhere. 

The  duties  provided  were  as  follows: 

1.  On  wools  of  the  first  class,  of  the  value  at  the  last  port  or  place 
whence  exported,  exclusive  of  charges  in  such  port,  of  32  cents  or  less 
per  pound,  10  cents  per  pound  and  11  per  cent,  ad  valorem;  exceeding 
32  cents  per  pound.  12  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

2.  On  wools  of  the  second  class,  and  upon  all  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat, 
and  other  like  animals  of  the  value  at  the  last  port  or  plane  whence  ex- 
ported, exclusive  of  charge  in  such  port,  of  32  cents  or  less  per  pound,  10 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  241 

cents  per  pound  and  11  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; exceeding  32  cents  per 
pound,  12  cents  per  pound  and  10  percent,  ad  valorem. 

3.  Upon  wools  of  the  third  class,  of  the  value  at  the  last  port  or  place 
wheuce  exported,  exclusfve  of  charges  in  such  port,  of  12  cents  or  under, 
3 cents  per  pound;  exceeding  12  cents  per  pound,  6 cents  per  pound. 

The  duty  on  wool  of  the  first  class  imported  washed,  to  be  twice  the 
amount  to  which  it  would  be  subject  if  imported  unwashed  ; and  scoured 
wools  to  pay  three  times  the  duty  imposed  upon  unwashed  wools. 

The  restrictive  provisions  as  to  wools  imported  in  other  than  the  ordi- 
nary condition  contained  in  previous  acts,  &c.,  were  re-enacted. 

A duty  of  12  cents  per  pound  was  imposed  upon  woolen  rags,  shoddy, 
mungo,  waste,  and  flocks,  which  was  intended  to  be  prohibitory. 

The  duty  on  sheep-skins  with  wool  on  was  advanced  to  30  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

The  duties  on  woolen  manufactures  were  increased  by  this  act  to  an 
assumed  parity  with  the  increased  cost  of  wool  to  the  manufacturer. 

The  value  of  importations  of  manufactures  of  wool  and  of  raw  wool 
under  this  act,  and  the  average  rate  of  duty  ad  valorem  on  imported 
wool,  were  as  follows : 


Years. 

| 

Manufact- 
ures of 
wool. 

Unmanu- 

factured 

wool. 

Average 
rate  of 
duty  ad 
valorem. 

Years. 

Manufact- 
ures of 
wool. 

Unmanu- 

factured 

wool. 

Average 
rate  of 
duty  ad 
valorem. 

1868 

1869 

$29, 928,  988 
i 34,  628,  327 
34,490,608 
43,  839,  640 
53,  400,  349 
51,075,  492 
46,  883, 188 
44,609,704  ! 
33,209,808  i 

$4,  079,  894 

5,  600,  958 

6,  743,  350 
9,780,443 

26,  214, 195  : 
20,433,938 
8,  250,  306  I 
11,071,279 
8,247,617  | 

Percent. 

40 

41 

1877  

1878  

$25,  701,  922 
25, 230, 154 
24,  355,  821 
33,912,  093 

31. 156,  426 
37,  361,  520 
44,  274,  952 

41. 157,  583 

$7,156,  944 

8,  363,  015 
5,  034,  545 

23,  727,  650 

9,  703,  968 
11,096,050 
10,949,  331 
12,  834,  709 

Per  cent. 

35 
38 

36 

1870 

38 

1879  

1871 

41 

1880.. 

41 

40 

37 

37 

33 

1872 

50 

1881 

1873 

46 

1882 

1874 

38 

1883 

1875 

39 

: 1884 

1876 

35  j 

i 

The  domestic  production  of  wool  was  reported  as  follows: 


Calendar  year. 

Pounds. 

Calendar  year. 

Pounds,  i 

i 

Calendar  year. 

I Pounds. 

1868 

180, 000,  000 
162,  000, 000 
160,  000,  000 
150,  000,  000 

158.000. 000 

170.000. 000 

1874 

181.  000,  000 
192,  000,  000 
200,  000,000 
208,  250,  000 
211,000,  000 
232,  500,  000 

1880 

! 240,  000, 000 

272. 000,  000 

290. 000,  000 
300,  000,  000 

1869 

1875 

1881 

1870 

1876  

j 1882 

1871 

1877 

1 1883 

1872  ; 

1873  ! 

1878  

1879  

The  average  prices  of  domestic  wool— fine,  medium,  and  coarse — were 
as  follows : 


Year. 

Value  in 
currency. 

Equiva-  1 
lent  in  ! 
gold. 

Year. 

. 

Value  in 
currency. 

Equiva- 
lent in 
gold. 

1868 

Cents. 

44 
48 

45 
54 
68 

54 

55 
47 

Cents. 

33 

37 

40 

48 

62 

48 

47 

43 

1876 

Cents. 

41 

42 

38 

36 

49 

42 

42 

39 

Cents. 

37 

40 

1869  

1877 

1870  

1878  

1871 

1879 

r 

3872  

1880  . 

1873  

1881 

1874  

1882  

1875  

1883  . . . 

S.  Ex.  72 16 


242  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


The  value  of  domestic  woolen  and  worsted  manufactures  in  1870,  ac- 
cording to  the  census,  was  $177,495,689,  equal  to  $4.60  per  capita. 

In  1880  the  value  of  woolen  and  worsted  goods  manufactured  was 
$194,156,663,  equal  to  $3.87-^  per  capita. 

By  the  tariff  act  of  June  6,  1872,  a horizontal  reduction  of  10  per 
cent,  was  made  in  the  duties  upon  wool  and  manufactures  thereof  as 
well  as  upon  other  imported  merchandise.  This  act  was  repealed 
March  3,  1875. 

The  wool  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  3, 1883,  are  modeled  upon  those 
of  the  act  of  1867,  and  are  practically  the  same  except  as  to  the  rates. 
In  wools  of  the  first  and  second  classes  the  line  of  division  as  to  value, 
whereby  the  higher  or  lower  rate  of  duty  was  determined,  was  reduced 
from  32  to  30  cents  per  pound,  and  the  ad  valorem  rates  abolished. 

In  wools  of  the  third  class  the  rates  were  reduced  from  3 and  6 cents, 
respectively,  to  2J  and  5 cents  per  pound,  the  value  line  of  division  at 
12  cents  remaining  the  same. 

A corresponding  reduction  was  made  in  woolens  and  certain  other 
manufactures  of  wool.  A disproportionate  reduction  was  made  in  the 
duties  on  woolen  and  worsted  yarns,  and  certain  worsted  goods*  par- 
ticulary  coatings,  which  has  resulted  in  largely  increased  importation  of 
those  articles-,  and  is  claimed  to  have  been  most  disastrous  to  domestic 
manufacturers. 

Owing  to  changed  processes  of  manufacture,  there  appears  to  be  no 
good  reason  for  preserving  the  distinction  in  tariff  classification  between 
woolen  and  worsted  products. 

The  classification  of  wool  by  race  or  blood  in  the  two  last  tariff  acts 
had  been  in  the  main  effectual  in  excluding  foreign  wools  competing 
with  wools  of  like  character  grown  in  this  country.  In  the  administra- 
tion of  the  law,  however,  aided  by  certain  decisions  of  the  Department, 
the  lines  of  demarcation,  fixed  by  the  statute  have  in  some  cases  been 
broken  over  by  the  admission  of  both  wool  and  goat’s  hair,  dutiable 
under  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  higher  classes,  at  the  lower  rates  of 
duty  applicable  to  wools  of  class  3. 

This  administrative  violation  of  law  has  been  discontinued  by  recent 
instructions  from  the  Department  revoking  the  erroneous  decisions 
under  which  it  was  done. 

The  weak  point  in  the  present  law,  as  well  as  in  the  act  of  1867,  in 
regard  to  wool,  is  the  provision  making  the  higher  or  lower  rate  of  duty 
dependent  upon  value,  and  the  exclusion  of  charges  at  the  last  port  of 
shipment  in  ascertaining  such  value.  It  is  here,  as  in  the  case  of  all 
duties  based  upon  value,  that  the  greatest  difficulties  arise  in  adminis- 
tration. 

As  to  wools  of  class  3,  the  limit  of  value  to  which  the  lower  rate  of 
duty  applies  is  12  cents  per  pound.  It  was  probably  supposed  that 
certain  coarse  wools  used  for  carpets  could  always  be  bought  at  12  cents 
or  under  in  the  foreign  markets,  and  that  certain  other  more  valuable 
wools  of  the  same  general  class  would  be  definitely  valued  over  12  cents. 
It  has  transpired,  however,  that  the  low  qualities  have  advanced,  and 
the  higher  declined  to  within  a fraction  of  the  border  line;  so  that  as 
to  the  former  the  advance  of  a fraction  of  a cent  would  make  the  wool 
subject  to  the  higher  rate,  or  the  decline  of  the  better  grades  of  a frac- 
tion of  a cent  would  euable  the  purchaser  to  make  entry  at  the  lower  rate. 

For  instance,  what  is  known  as  unwashed  Scotch  white  Highland  wool, 
the  value  of  which,  as  a rule,  hovers  closely  about  the  dividing  line,  at 
times  advances  beyond  that  line,  so  that  the  honest  manufacturer  who 
imports  it  must  pay  the  double  duty  when  he  can  least  afford  it.  But 


.REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


243 


experience  lias  shown  that  the  unscrupulous  importer  takes  advantage 
of  the  clause  excluding  charges  at  the  last  port  of  shipment,  and,  by  de- 
ducting so  much  of  the  increased  price  as  is  necessary  to  bring  it  below 
the  line  and  adding  the  amount  to  the  charges,  escapes  payment  of  the 
increased  duty,  to  the  injury  of  his  honest  neighbor  who  pays  the  full 
duty. 

This  has  been  done  extensively  within  the  past  three  years,  notably 
in  1882-83,  when  certain  parties  brought  into  the  ports  of  Philadelphia 
and  New  York  large  quantities  of  such  wool  at  the  lower  rate,  while 
wool  of  the  same  character,  quality,  and  value,  from  the  same  places, 
was  entered  by  other  importers  at  the  higher  rate.  The  device  by 
which  this  was  generally  accomplished  was,  as  has  been  stated,  to  in- 
clude so  much  of  the  actual  cost  as  would  bring  the  price  to  12  cents, 
in  fictitious  charges,  making  the  total  charges  range  from  12  per  cent, 
to  18  per  cent.,  while  such  charges  expressed  in  honest  invoices 
ranged  only  from  2 per  cent,  to  5 per  cent.  Attention  is  invited  in  this 
connection  to  the  large  increase  of  importations  of  wool  passed  as  of 
class  3 during  the  years  1882,  1883,  and  1884,  over  1880  and  1881,  as 
shown  by  the  accompanying  table,  marked  A. 

Notwithstanding  the  limited  quantity  of  foreign  wool  imported  into 
the  United  States,  as  compared  with  that  consumed  in  other  manufact- 
uring countries,  our  tariff  laws,  especially  the  later  ones,  have  had  a 
marked  effect  upon  the  prices  of  wool  in  the  principal  wool-exporting 
countries  of  the  world.  Probably  the  readiness  with  which  Ihese  prices 
have  responded  to  the  peculiar  and  varying  rates  of  duty  prescribed  by 
our  different  wool  tariffs  was  more  apparent  than  real  in  many  cases; 
yet  the  actual  influence  of  such  legislation  cannot  be  disputed,  and  the 
effect  has  been  in  the  main  injurious  alike  to  our  wool-growing  and 
manufacturing  interests. 

It  is  hereinbefore  shown  that  under  the  acts  of  1832-’33  and  1842  the 
wools  imported  were  largely  invoiced  and  entered  successively  at  not 
above  8 cents  and  7 cents  per  pound,  so  that  their  admission  was  se- 
cured either  free  of  duty  or  at  the  nominal  rate  of  5 per  cent,  ad  valo- 
rem. Under  the  operation  of  the  act  of  1857  certain  wools  from  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope,  for  example,  came  in  as  costing  barely  a fraction 
less  than  the  price  (20  cents  per  pound)  at  which  they  were  entitled  to 
free  admission.  When  the  tariff  of  1801  took  effect  these  same  wools 
dropped  to  less  than  the  equivalent  of  18  cents  per  pound  at  place  of 
export,  thus  escaping  the  specific  rate  of  3 cents  per  pound,  and  coming 
in  under  the  nominal  duty  of  5 per  cent,  ad  valorem.  So  under  the 
act  of  1864  certain  wools,  previously  costing  at  place  of  export  about  14 
cents  to  16  cents  per  pound,  fell  apparently  to  figures  which  allowed 
their  admission  at  the  lowest  rate  (3  cents  per  pound)  provided  by  that 
act. 

Whether  these  fluctuations  were  actual  or  fictitious,  the  effect  was 
the  same  so  far  as  the  question  of  duty  was  concerned,  and  our  domestic 
manufacturers  were  benefited  to  that  extent.  If  real,  however,  it  is 
manifest  that  such  benefit  was  not  commensurate  with  the  advantages 
of  such  lower  prices  accruing  to  foreign  manufacturers  consuming  such 
wool,  free  of  duty,  in  quantities  immensely  greater  than  are  used  in 
this  country,  and  who  send  their  products  to  be  sold  in  our  markets. 

While  the  general  tendency  of  the  system  of  graduated  specific  rates 
according  to  value  has  been  toward  reduction  in  price — at  least  of  in- 
voice and  entered  value — of  fiuer  foreign  wools,  it  has  in  instances  op- 
erated in  the  opposite  direction,  and  to  the  positive  detriment  of  our 
domestic  manufacturers,  by  advancing  the  price  of  the  lower  qualities 


244  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


of  wool  to  or  near  tlie  limit  fixed  for  admission  at  the  lowest  rate.  For 
example,  when  the  act  of  1864  took  effect  certain  coarse  wools,  which 
had  been  selling  in  the  foreign  markets  at  from  about  8 cents  to  9 cents 
per  pound,  advanced  directly  to  about  12  cents,  on  account  of  the  de- 
mand from  our  manufacturers — particularly  of  carpets — for  wools  that 
would  come  in  at  the  lower  rate  of  3 cents  per  pound. 

We  are  informed  that  this  was  effected  chiefly  by  English  wool  specu- 
lators and  was  encouraged  by  English  carpet-makers,  whose  policy  it 
was  to  make  our  carpet  manufacturers  pay  the  highest  price  possible 
for  such  low  wools,  whilst  they  themselves  secured  the  better  qualities 
of  carpet  wools  at  prices  but  slightly  above  12  cents  per  pound.  This 
practice  grew  into  a custom,  which  has  since  prevailed  to  a large  extent. 

It  seems  clear  that  all  proper  interests  concerned  would  be  subserved 
by  providing  for  a single  specific  rate  of  duty  upon  wools  of  class  3, 
so  long  as  it  may  be  deemed  advisable  to  impose  duties  upon  products 
of  this  character. 

A distinguished  wool  manufacturer  of  Ehode  Island,  Mr.  Rowland 
Hazard,  estimates  the  number  of  sheep  to  each  hundred  of  inhabitants 
in  the  three  great  wool-producing  countries,  as  follows: 

In  South  Africa,  890 ; in  the  Australian  colonies,  2,402 ; and  in  the 
River  Plate  regions  of  South  America,  2,580,  while  in  Canada,  the 
United  States,  Great  Britain,  and  Continental  Europe,  including  Russia, 
the  number  is  only  from  70  to  100  sheep  to  each  hundred  of  inhabitants. 
The  three  countries  first  named  export  their  products,  and  with  their 
natural  advantages  they  are  enabled  to  sell  very  cheap. 

As  already  mentioned,  the  chief  object  sought  and  accomplished  in 
the  classification  of  wools  according  to  race  or  blood  under  the  acts  of 
1867  and  1883  was  the  exclusion  of  the  finer  wools  of  these  countries, 
particularly  those  from  the  Argentine  Republic  and  South  Africa. 

As  showing  the  heavy  tax  imposed  by  the  existing  tariff  on  foreign 
wools,  which  form  the  bulk  of  the  importations,  we  refer  to  tables  here- 
with marked  B,  C,  and  D,  which  accompany  the  report  recently  made 
to  you  by  the  National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers.  The  prices 
given  in  these  tables  are  stated  to  be  those  at  which  the  wools  could  be 
bought  in  the  principal  foreign  markets  iu  1884. 

For  convenient  reference  we  append  a table  (marked  E)  showing  the 
prices  of  domestic  wool  from  1824  to  1884,  inclusive. 

The  statistical  information  contained  in  this  report,  the  source  of 
which  is  not  specifically  stated,  was  obtained  from  the  reports  of  com- 
merce and  navigation,  from  finance  reports,  and  from  reports  of  the 
Bureau  of  Statistics. 

Very  respectfully, 


GEO.  C.  TICHENOR, 

A.  K.  TINGLE, 

Special  Agents . 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


245 


A. — Statement  showing  the  quantity  of  clothing , combing , and  carpet  wool  imported , the 
values , and  the  duties  collected,  with  percentages  of  quantity  of  each  class,  and  the  average 
ad  valorem  duty. 


Class. 

Quantity. 

Percentage. 

Value. 

Duties. 

Average  ad  val- 
orum  duty. 

1880. 

No.  1.  Clpthing  wool 

Pounds. 
26,  785, 172 

27 

$6,  412,  273 

$3,  512,  986 

55 

No.  2.  Combing  wool 

13, 266,  856 

13 

3,  801,730 

1,  783, 361 

47 

No.  3.  Carpet  wool 

59,  320,  412 

60 

7,  699,  663 

2, 077,  959 

27 

99,  372, 440 

17, 913,  636 

7,  374,  306 

41 

1881. 

No.  1.  Clothing  wool 

20,  609,  707 

30 

4,  751,  454 

2,  599,  686 

55 

No.  2.  Combing  wool 

4,  421,490 

7 

1,  271,338 

585,  500 

46 

No.  3.  Carpet  wool 

42,  385,  769 

63 

6,  038,  041 

1,  675,  630 

28 

Total  _ _ _ 

67,  416,  966 

12,  060,  827 

4,  860,  816 

40 

1882. 

No.  1.  Clothing  wool  

13,  489,  922 

21 

3,  042,  407 

1,  693,  078 

56 

No.  2.  Combing  wool * 

2,  318,  671 

4 

648,  252 

304, 133 

47 

No.  3.  Carpet  wool  . 

47,  208, 175 

75 

6,  642,  699 

1, 857, 442 

28 

Total 

63,  016,  768 

10,  333,  358 

3,  854,  653 

35 

1883. 

No.  1.  Clothing  wool 

11,  546,  530 

22 

2,  567,  443 

1, 444,  949 

56 

No.  2.  Combing  wool 

1,373, 113 

3 

343,  987 

176, 181 

51 

No.  3.  Carpet  wool 

40, 130,  322 

76 

5,  580,  558 

1,  553, 498 

28 

Total 

53,  049,  965 

8,  491,988 

3,174,628 

36 

1884. 

No.  1.  Clothing  wool 

20, 703,  843 

24 

4,  700,  605 

2,  111,  280 

45 

No.  2.  Combing  wool 

4,  474,  395 

5 

1,058,  758 

451,  521 

43 

No.  3.  Carpet  wool 

62,  525,  692 

71 

7,  833, 936 

1,  960,  025 

25 

Total 

87, 703, 930 

— 

13, 593,  299 

4, 522, 826 

33 

246  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Table  B. 


Duty: 

Unwashed. 

Washed. 


Class  I. — CLOTHING  WOOLS. 

Valued  at  not  exceeding  30  cents  per  pound,  10  cents  per  pound. 
Valued  at  exceeding  30  cents  per  pound,  12  cents  per  pound. 

Wools  of  this  class  pay  twice,  and  scoured  wools  three  times,  the 
amount  of  duty  imposed  upon  unwashed  wool. 


Kind  of  wool. 

Port  of  shipment. 

Cost  per  pound  at  port  of 
shipment. 

Duty  per  pound. 

Cost  of  importation  at  Bos- 
ton, including  commission 
per  pound. 

Total  duty  and  cost  of  im- 
portation at  Boston,  in- 
cluding commission  per 
pound. 

Total  cost  per  pound  at  Bos- 
ton. 

Percentage  of  duty  on  cost 
at  port  of  shipment. 

Percentage  of  duty  and  ex- 
pense of  importation,  in- 
cluding commission,  on 
cost  at  port  of  shipment. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

1 Cents. 

.1 Cents . 

CenU. 

: 

Cents. 

Cents. 

10 

10 

1.  78 

11.  78 

21. 78 

100.00 

117. 80 

Do! 

. _ .do 

11 

10 

l!  86 

11. 86 

22.  86 

90.  90 

107. 82 

Cape,  Greasy 

. _ . do 

12 

10 

1.  94 

11. 94 

23.  94 

83. 33 

99.  50 

Sydney,  Greasy.... 

.do  . 

13 

10 

2. 02 

12. 02 

! 25. 02 

; 76. 92 

92.  46 

Tasmania,  Greasy 

...  do 

14 

10 

2. 11 

1 12. 11 

1 26. 11 

1 71.43 

86.  50 

Port  Phillip,  Sydney,  Queens- 

.. do 

15 

10 

2. 18 

12. 18 

1 27.18 

66.  67 

81.20 

land,  Adelaide,  New  Zea- 

land, Tasmania,  and  Cape, 

Greasy. 

Do 

. . do 

16 

10 

2. 26 

12.  26 

28.26 

62.  50 

76.  62 

Do 

. . .do 

17 

10 

2!  35 

12.  35 

29.35 

58.  82 

72.  65 

Do 

do 

18 

10 

2.43 

12.  43 

30.43 

55.  55 

69.  05 

Do  

do  

19 

10 

2.  52 

12.  52 

31.  52 

52.  63 

65.  90 

Do 

do 

20 

10 

3.07 

13.  07 

33.07 

50.  00 

65.  35 

Do 

. . .do 

21 

10 

3. 12 

13.  12 

j 34. 12 

47.  62 

62.  48 

Do... 

. . .do 

22 

10 

3.17 

13. 17 

1 35. 17 

46.  45 

59.  87 

Do 

...do 

23 

10 

3.22 

13.22 

1 36.22 

43.  48 

57.  48 

Do 

. . . do 

24 

10  1 

3.  54  i 

13.  54 

; 37. 54 

41.67 

56.  38 

Do 

. . .do 

25 

10 

3.  59 

13.  59 

38.59 

40.  00 

54.  36 

Do  

. . .do i 

26 

10 

3.  64 

13.64 

39.  64 

38.  46 

52.46 

Do 

...do 1 

27 

10 

3.  68 

13.  68 

40.  68 

37.  04 

50.  67 

Do 

. . .do 

28 

10 

3.  74 

13.  74 

41.74 

35.  71 

49.  07 

Do 

. . .do 

29 

10 

4.  05 

14.  05 

43.05 

34.48 

48.  45 

Do 

. . .do 

31 

12 

4.  51 

16.51 

47.  51 

38.  71 

53.  26 

Do 

do 

32 

12 

4.  56 

16.  56 

48.  56 

37.  50 

51.  75 

Do 

do 

33 

12 

4.61 

16.  61 

49.  61 

36.  36 

50.  34 

Sydney  and  Port  Phillip 

Sydney  

20 

10 

4.  77 

14.  77 

34.  77 

50.  00 

73.  85 

wools,  imported  direct  from 

place  of  growth. 

Do 

Port  Phillip . 

20 

10 

4.97 

14.97 

34.97  1 

50. 00 

74.85 

Do 

Sydney  

22 

10 

4.  96 

14.  96 

36.96 

45.  45 

68.00 

Do 

Port  Philiip . 

22 

10 

5. 16 

15.16 

37.16  1 

45.  45 

68.91 

Do 

. . . do 

24 

10 

5.  36 

15.  36 

39.  36 

41.  67 

64.  00 

Do 

Sydney  

24 

10 

5. 17 

15. 17 

39.17 

4J.67 

63.21 

Do 

...  do 

26 

10 

5. 36 

15.  36 

41.36 

38.  46 

59.  08 

Do 

Port  Phillip. 

26 

• 10 

5.  56 

15.  56 

41.56 

38.  46 

59.85 

Do 

. . . do 

28 

10 

5.77 

15. 77 

43.  77 

35.  71 

56.  32 

Do 

Sydney  

28 

10 

5.55 

15. 55 

43.  55 

35.  71 

55.53 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


247 


Table  C. 

Class  II.— COMBING-WOOLS. 

Duty: 

Washed  and  unwashed.  Valued  at  not  exceeding  30  cents  per  pound,  10  cents  per 
pound. 

Valued  at  exceeding  30  cents  per  pound,  12  cents  per 
pound. 

Scoured  wools  of  this  class  pay  three  times  the  duty  imposed  upon  washed  and 
unwashed. 


Kind  of  wool. 

Port  of 
shipment. 

Cost  per  pound  at  port  of 
shipment. 

rs 

a 

o 

P< 

u 

<B 

& 

3 

Q 

Cost  of  importation  at  Bos- 
ton, including  commission,  | 
per  pound. 

Total  duty  and  cost  of  im- 
portation at  Boston,  in- 
cluding commission,  per 
pound. 

Total  cost  per  pound  at 
Boston. 

Percentage  of  duty  on  cost 
at  port  of  shipment. 

Percentage  of  duty  and  ex- 
pense of  importation,  in- 
cluding commission,  on 
cost  at  port  of  shipment. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

English  washed 

Liverpool . 

18 

10 

2. 81 

12.  81 

30.81 

55.55 

71.17 

Do 

...do  

19 

10 

2.  87 

12.  87 

31.87 

52.  63 

67.  74 

Do 

...do  

20 

10 

3.  07 

13.  07 

33.  07 

50.  00 

65.  35 

Do 

... do  

21 

10 

3. 12 

13. 12 

34. 12 

47.  62 

62.48 

Do 

...  do 

22 

10 

3. 17 

13. 17 

35. 17 

45. 45 

59.  86 

Do  

do 

23 

10 

3.  22 

13.  22 

36.  22 

43.  48 

57. 48 

Do 

...  do 

24 

10 

3.  54 

13.54 

37.  54 

41.  67 

56.  38 

Do 

25 

10 

3.  59 

13.  59 

38.  59 

40.  00 

54.  36 

Do  

do 

26 

10 

3.  64 

13.  64 

39.  64 

38.  46 

52. 46 

Do 

...  do 

27 

10 

3.  68 

13.  68 

40.  68 

37.  04 

50.  67 

Canada  washed 

Hamilton  . 

20 

10 

2.  60 

12.60 

32.  60 

50.  00 

63.  00 

Do 

. . . do  

21 

10 

2.  65 

12.  65 

33.  65 

47.  62 

60.  24 

Australian  and  New  Zealand 

London . . . 

14 

10 

2.11 

12.11 

26.11 

71. 43 

86.50 

unwashed,  cross-bred,  and 

English-blood  wools. 

Do 

do  ...... 

15 

10 

2. 18 

12. 18 

27.18 

66.67 

81.  20 

Do  

do 

16 

10 

2. 26 

12.26 

28.  26 

62.  50 

76.  62 

Do 

. . .do 

17 

10 

2. 35 

12.  35 

29.35 

58.  83 

72.  65 

Do 

do 

18 

10 

2. 43 

12.43 

30.43 

55.  55 

69.  05 

Do 

19 

10 

2.52 

12. 52 

31. 52 

52.63 

65.90 

248  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Table  D. 

Class  III.— CARPET  WOOLS  AND  OTHER  SIMILAR  WOOLS. 

Duty  : 

Washed  and  unleashed . Valued  at  not  exceeding  12  cents  per  pound,  2-J  cents  per 
pound. 

Valued  at  over  12  cents  per  pound,  5 cents  per  pound. 
Scoured  wools  of  this  class  pay  three  times  the  duty  imposed  upon  washed  and 
. unwashed. 


Kind  of  wool. 

Port  of  shipment. 

1 Cost  per  pound  at  port  of 
shipment. 

Cost  per  pound  at  port  of 
shipment.* 

1 Cost  per  pound  of  importa- 
tion to  Boston,  including 
! . commissions. 

Specific  duty  per  pound. 

Total  duty  and  costof  import- 
ation per  pound  at  Boston, 
i including  commissions. 

Total  cost  per  pound  at  Bos- 
ton. 

Total  cost  per  pound  at  Bos- 
ton, plus  5 per  cent. 

Per  cent,  of  total  duty  on 
cost  at  port  of  shipment. 

Per  cent  of  total  duty  and  ex- 
penses of  importations,  in- 
cluding commission,  on 
cost,  at  port  of  shipment. 

1.  Persian 

! Alexandretta 

Pence. 

5.17 

Cents. 
10.  51 

Cents . 
1.  88  ! 

Cents. 
\ 2.50 

Cents. 
4.  38 

Cents. 
14.  89 

Cents. 

15.63 

Per 
cent. 
23. 79 

Per 
\ cent. 
41.  67 

2 do 

i do 

11.74 

2.10 

2.50 

4.60 

16. 34 

17. 16 

21. 29 

1 39. 18 

3.  Damascus 

H 

10. 63 

1.37  : 

2.50 

3.  87 

14.50 

15.22 

23.  52 

! 36. 41 

4.  Salonica 

1 Marseilles 

1 Francs. 
1.37  le  K. 

11.95 

; 1. 17 

2.50 

3.67 

15.  62 

16.40 

20.  92 

30.  71 

5.  Scotch,  un- 

!  Liverpool 

Pence. 

11.  89 

1.25  1 

2.50 

3.75 

15.64 

16.  42 

21. 03 

31  54 

washed. 

6.  Scotch,  washed  j 

...do  

7i 

14.  66 

.96 

5.00 

5.96 

'20.64 

:21.  67 

34. 06 

40.  60 

7.  East  India, 

...do  

10$ 

21.  26 

.53 

5.00  j 

5.53 

26.79 

28. 13 

23.  52 

26.01 

white. 

8.  Valparaiso,  i 

bought  in  Liv- 
erpool. 

9.  Criolla 

— do 

5| 

11.  89 

.60 

2.50 

3.10 

14.  99 

1 

15.74 

21.03 

26.  07 

Montevideo . . . 

Per  aroba. 
$2  23 

9.  29 

3.29 

2.50 

5.79 

15.  08 

15.83 

26.91 

62. 33 

10.  Cordova 

Rosario 

Per  aroba. 
241  rls. 

11.97 

3.21 

2.50 

5.  71 

17.68 

18.56 

20.89 

47.70 

Exchange  at  $4.86. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


249 


E. — Statement  showing  the  average  prices  of  domestic , fine,  medium,  and  coarse  washed  fleece 
wool,  for  the  months  of  January,  April,  July,  and  October,  and  the  total  average  during 
each  year  from  1824  to  1884,  inclusive . 


Year. 

Fine. 

Me- 

dium. 

Coarse. 

Aver- 

age. 

Year. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

1824.... 

63 

45 

33 

47 

1859 .... 

1825.... 

55 

42 

33 

43 

I860.... 

1826.... 

47 

39 

34 

40 

1861.... 

1827.... 

40 

37 

27 

35 

1828.... 

45 

36 

30 

37 

1829  . . 

45 

36 

32 

34 

1830.... 

55 

46 

37 

46 

1831.... 

71 

61 

50 

61 

1832.... 

56 

50 

36 

47 

1862.... 

1863.. .. 
1864  ... 

1865.. .. 

1866.. . 

1867.. .. 

1868.. .. 

1833.... 

61 

51 

39 

50 

1834.... 

65 

54 

33 

51 

1835.... 

64 

54 

46 

55 

1836.... 

68 

58 

50 

59 

1837.... 

60 

53 

45 

53 

1838... 

51 

42 

34 

42 

1839.... 

57 

49 

40 

49 

1840.... 

48 

41 

35 

41 

loby . . . . 

1870.. .. 

1871.. .. 

1872  ... 

1873  ... 

1874. . .. 

1875.. .. 

1876.. .. 

1877.. .. 

1841.... 

51 

44 

35 

43 

1842.... 

44 

38 

31 

37 

1843.. .. 

1844.. .. 

. 35  | 
44 

30 

36 

23 

30 

29 

37 

1845.... 

42  1 

37 

30 

36 

1846.... 

38  ! 

32 

27 

32 

1847.... 

46 

40 

30 

39 

1848....  | 

40 

34 

28 

34 

1849.... 

39 

34 

28 

34 

1850  ... 

46 

39 

32 

39 

1851.... 

47 

42 

35 

41 

1852.... 

45 

39 

34 

39 

1853.... 

59 

54 

47 

53 

1878. . . . 

1854.... 

49 

46 

38 

44 

1879.... 

1855. . . . 

46 

38 

33 

39 

1880.... 

1856.... 

56 

45 

39 

47 

1881.... 

1857.... 

53 

47 

38 

46 

1882.... 

1858.... 

45 

36 

31 

37 

1883.. .. 

1884.. .. 

Fine. 

Medium. 

Coarse. 

Average. 

Cents. 

Cents: 

Cents. 

Cents. 

59 

47 

40 

49 

55 

48 

41 

48 

43 

39 

35 

39 

Cur- 

Gold. 

Cur- 

Gold. 

Cur- 

Gold. 

Cur- 

Gold. 

rency. 

rency. 

rency. 

rency. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

51 

46 

50 

45 

50 

45 

50 

45 

79 

54 

76 

52 

73 

50 

76 

52 

90 

44 

88 

43 

85 

42 

87 

43 

83 

53 

82 

52 

75 

48 

80 

51 

67 

47 

63 

45 

54 

38 

61 

43 

58 

42 

51 

37 

46 

33 

52 

37 

48 

34 

46 

33 

43 

31 

46 

33 

49 

37 

49 

37 

47- 

36 

48 

37 

48 

41  ! 

47 

40 

44  ! 

38 

46 

40 

56 

50  | 

55 

49 

51 

45 

54 

48 

72 

65  1 

68 

61 

60 

59 

68 

62 

58 

51  1 

56 

49 

49 

43 

54 

48 

55 

50 

54 

1 49 

47  | 

42 

52 

47 

52 

45 

52 

44 

45  j 

39 

47 

43 

44 

40 

44 

40 

37 

31 

41 

37 

47 

45 

43 

40 

37 

34 

42 

40 

Fine. 

Medium. 

Coarse. 

Average. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

39 

40 

34 

38 

37 

38 

34 

36 

49 

52 

46 

49 

43 

46 

38 

42 

43 

45 

37 

42 

41 

42 

34 

39 

40 

37 

32 

33 

J.  R.  DODGE,  STATISTICIAN,  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  October  8,  1885. 

Sir:  The  following  letter  of  inquiry  concerning  numbers  of  sheep  and  quantities 
and  prices  of  domestic  wool,  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  the  Commissioner 
of  Agriculture,  has  been  referred  to  me  for  answer : 

“Sir  : I will  thank  you  to  furnish  me  such  information  as  may  be  available  in  your 
Department  concerning  the  number  of  sheep,  and  the  quantity  aud  average  price  per 
pound  of  the  wool-clip  of  the  United  States  for  the  past  year,  and  for  previous  years 
since  1860,  together  with  any  statistics  you  may  have  concerning  the  quantity  of  wool 
consumed  during  the  periods  referred  to. 

“Very  respectfully, 

“D.  MANNING, 

“ Secretary .” 

The  early  settlers  of  this  country  brought  with  them  sheep  of  their  respective 
countries  for  the  wool  required  in  a very  restricted  range  of  domestic  manufacture. 
Washington  and  others  imported  specimens  of  the  Bakewell  improvement  of  English 
coarse-wool  breeds.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  Spanish  merino 
was  introduced  into  France  and  Germany,  and  the  French  and  Saxon  families  were 
established . 

In  the  early  years  of  the  present  century  there  were  numerous  importations  of  the 
Spanish  merino  into  this  country,  originating  the  American  merino  family,  which  is 
now,  by  a long  course  of  improvement,  the  most  valuable  representative  of  that  re- 
markable race.  The  buisness  of  wool-growing  assumed  relative  importance  a few 
years  prior  to  the  second  war  with  Great  Britain.  At  its  close  the  influx  of  the  cheaper 
goods  of  Europe  nearty  destroyed  domestic  manufacture  and  slaughtered  the  flocks 
of  the  country,  Sheep  that  in  souae  instances  had  been  valued  at  {$1,000  each  could 


250  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


command  little  above  the  average  rate  of  a dollar  per  bead.  Manufactures  were  re- 
ported at  a value  of  $25,608,788  in  1810,  and  in  1820  the  product  was  only  $4,413,068. 

The  next  impetus  given  to  wool-growing  was  caused  by  the  tariff  of  1824,  and  the 
rising  prominence  of  the  Saxon  merino,  which  for  fifteen  years  led  the  fashion  in  wool 
improvement.  The  wool  industry  in  this  country  has  ever  been  peculiarly  suscepti- 
ble to  elevating  and  to  depressing  influences,  resulting  in  enthusiasm  and  disgust  by 
turns,  as  expectations  were  raised  or  hopes  destroyed  by  fluctuations  in  prices. 

Numbers  increased  year  by  year,  as  population  advanced  and  home  manufactures 
became  a necessity  to  farmers  who  had  not  the  means  of  purchasing  foreign  goods, 
until,  in  1836,  from  extensive  statistical  investigation,  the  numbers  of  sheep  in  the 
Eastern  and  Middle  States,  Maryland,  Virginia,  Ohio,  and  Kentucky,  were  found  to 
be  nearly  thirteen  millions.  Including  the  Southern  and  other  States,  the  aggregate 
was  probably  about  seventeen  millions.  The  census  shows  the  progress  since,  and 
reports  the  wool  in  the  hands  of  the  growers,  but  does  not  include  the  wool  taken 
from  sheep  and  lambs  killed  by  butchers,  which  I estimate  in  the  third  column  of  the 
following  statement : 


Years. 

Sheep. 

Wool. 

Growers. 

Butchers’, 
pulled,  &.c. 

Total. 

1840 

19,  311, 374 
21,  723,  220 
22, 471,  275 
28, 477,  951 
42, 192,  074 
50,  360,  243 

35,  802, 114 
52,  516,  969 
60,  511,  343 
100,102,  387 
202,  861, 751 
262,  000,  000 

7,  000, 000 
10,  000,  000 
12.  000,  000 
2 <y,  ooo,  ooo 

38,  000,  000 
46,  000,  000 

42,  802, 114 
62,  516,  969 
• 72,  571,  343 

120, 102,  387 
240,  861,  751 
308,  000,  000 

1850 

I860 

1870 

1880 

1883* 

* Estimated. 


This  period  of  forty- five  years  covers  all  but  the  small  beginnings  of  the  organized 
manufacture  of  woolen  goods  in  this  country.  It  begins  with  the  displacement  of 
the  fine  wool ; Saxons  for  the  heavier  and  longer  fleece  of  the  American  family  of 
merinos,  a change  that  was  powerfully  aided  by  the  straight  ad  valorem  tariff  of 
1846.  With  nearly  a third  of  the  present  population,  the  wool  manufactured  was 
about  one-sixth  of  the  present  consumption,  of  which  a larger  proportion  than  at 
present  was  foreign.  The  necessities  of  the  case  and  the  tendencies  of  the  times 
favored  rapid  advancement  in  manufacture.  Factories  gradually  increased  from 
1840  to  1846,  when  a considerable  proportion,  including  all  of  those  making  broad- 
cloths, were  compelled  to  stop  operations,  usually  at  the  fiat  of  the  sheriff.  The 
manufacture  of  coarse  goods,  however,  was  continued,  with  gradual  and  slow  in- 
crease until  1860,  the  date  from  which  the  real  progress  of  the  wool  manufacture  in 
the  United  States  commences  with  vigor,  its  present  importance  being  four  times  as 
great  as  in  1860,  while  the  increase  of  population  has  been  about  80  per  cent. 

The  wool  industry  has  grown  in  twenty-five  years  to  large  proportions,  represent- 
ing a value  of  over  two  hundred  million  dollars  in  sheep  and  an  annual  product  of 
eighty  million  dollars  in  wool  and  forty  in  meat.  It  has  acquired  a steadiness  and 
solidity  of  position  unknown  in  former  days,  having  become  a necessity  to  our  manu- 
facturing system.  Wool-growing  and  wool-manufacture  are  mutually  dependent  for 
the  continued  success  of  each.  The  manufactures  of  no  other  country  have  a supply 
of  equal  uniformity  and  intrinsic  value,  and  the  manufactures  of  no  other  nation  are 
of  equal  strength  and  durability.  The  absence  of  harsh  wools,  drawn  from  hot 
climates  and  half  civilized  countries,  and  the  comparitively  small  use  of  shoddy, 
contribute  to  this  superiority. 

The  increase  in  wool  is  seen  to  be  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  increase  in  number 
of  sheep.  The  census  averages  of  weight  of  farm  fleeces  illustrate  this,  as  follows: 
In  1840,  1.85  pounds;  1850,  2.42  pounds;  1860,  2.68  pounds;  1870,  3.52  pounds;  1880, 
4.79  pounds.  The  improvement  in  density  and  weight  of  fleece  constitutes  the  great 
advantage  which  the  manufacturing  demand  has  made,  rather  than  increase  of  price, 
which  tends  to  steadiness  and  cheapness  in  material  and  product,  by  the  full  develop- 
ment of  the  manufacture. 

The  prices  of  sheep  and  of  wool  were  high  in  the  five-year  period,  and  in  1867  the 
average  farm  value  of  sheep  was  $3.37.  At  this  time  the  stocks  of  goods  were  ple- 
thoric throughout  the  world;  2,000,000  of  overcoats  and  other  army  goods  were 
thrown  upon  our  markets;  those  of  all  countries  were  glutted;  prices  of  goods  and 
material  fell  everywhere,  and  the  tariff  of  1867  could  only  partially  counteract  the 
decline  in  prices  which  caused  the  destruction  of  four  million  sheep  in  Ohio,  Michi- 
gan, and  elsewhere,  which  were  remorselessly  knifed,  pelted,  and  rendered  for  fat 
during  that  season.  In  the  latter  part  of  1878  the  average  price  of  sheep  had  fallen 
to  $2.73,  and  to  $2.17  a year  later,  after  which  an  improvement  is  noted.  Since  that 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


251 


date  only  slight  fluctuations  have  occurred.  There  was  gradual  increase  to  $2.80  in 
1873,  and  decline  during  the  period  of  depression  to  $2.07  in  1879,  since  which  the 
annual  averages  have  been  as  follows: 


Year. 

Prices. 

1881  

$2  39 
2 37 

1882 

1883  

2 53 

1884 

2 37 

1885 

2 14 

Average  of  five  years 

2 36 

Average  of  ten  years  previously _ 

2 48 

The  prices  of  wool,  as  reported  by  Mauger  & Avery,  have  been  as  follows: 


Year. 

JANUARY. 

Fine. 

Medium. 

Coarse. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

1840 

50 

45 

38 

1841 

52 

45  • 

35 

1842 

48 

42 

35 

1843 

35 

30 

25 

1844 

37 

30 

26 

1845 

47 

40 

31 

1846 

40 

35 

30 

1847 

45 

40 

30 

1848 

45 

38 

30 

1849 

33 

30 

23 

1850 

47 

40 

33 

1851 

46 

40 

33 

1852 

43 

38 

34 

1853 

58 

56 

50 

1854 

53 

47 

42 

JANUARY. 

Year. 

Fine. 

Medium. 

Coarse. 

1855 

Cents. 

40 

Cents. 

35 

Cents. 

32 

1856 

50 

38 

35 

1857 

58 

50 

42 

1858 

40 

33 

27 

1859 

60 

52 

45 

1860 

60 

50 

42 

1861 

45 

40 

37 

1862 

48 

50 

50 

1863 

75 

68 

70 

1864 

80 

78 

76 

1865 

102 

100 

96 

1866 

70 

65 

50 

1867 

68 

53 

50 

1868 

48 

43 

38 

1869 

50 

50 

48 

1 

JANUARY. 

Year. 

© 

a 

K 

Medium. 

Coarse. 

1870  

Cents. 

48 

Cents. 

46 

Cents. 

\ 44 

1871 

47 

46 

43 

1872  

70 

72 

66 

1873  

70 

68 

65 

1874  

58 

54 

47 

1875  

55 

56 

47 

1876  

48 

52 

42 

1877  

60 

43 

36 

1878  

44 

45 

38 

1879  

34 

35 

32 

1880  

50 

55 

48 

1881 

47 

49 

43 

1882  

44 

46 

47 

1883  

40 

43 

33 

1884  

40 

40 

34 

The  imported  wools  of  the  last  five  years  constitute  nearly  one-fifth  of  the  quantity 
manufactured,  but  it  is  a little  more  than  a tenth  of  the  value  of  the  wool  manufact- 
ured. Most  of  it  is  carpet  wool,  which  is  not  grown  here  to  any  appreciable  extent, 
and  is  not  desired,  as  it  is  the  product  of  barbarous  conditions.  Our  growers,  who 
purchase  the  inferior  ewes  of  Mexico  as  convenient  foundations  of  flocks,  breed  away 
from  that  type  as  rapidly  as  possible,  and  by  crossing  with  the  merino  soon  produce 
a fleece  of  double  weight  and  twice  the  value  per  pound.  It  may  not  be  generally 
understood  that  this  country  practically  produces  its  own  wool,  this  exception  of 
carpet  wool  serving  to  deceive  the  casual  observer.  To  show  how  small  the  amount 
of  clothing  and  worsted  wools  introduced,  even  under  the  reduction  of  duties,  the 
following  statement  is  taken  from  custom  returns  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1885: 


Pounds. 

Value. 

Clothing  wools 

11, 475,  889 
2,  780,  751 
56,  339,  530 

$2,  262,  824 
669,  604 
5,  947,  495 

Comhing  wools 

Carpet  wools •. 

70,  596, 170 

8, 879, 923 

The  carpet  wools  average  a fraction  over  10  cents  per  pound,  and  the  other  classes 
about  twice  as  much  “in  the  dirt,”  and  four-fifths  of  all  are  carpet  wools,  provided 
the  invoices  are  honestly  made. 

The  woolen  goods  now  imported  are  mostly  fine  cloths  and  fine  dress  goods,  and 
styles  of  which  scarcely  any  were  produced  in  this  country  twenty-five  years  ago, 
representing  a very  small  quantity  of  wool,  and  including  certain  fabrics  not  yet  ex- 
tensively produced  here,  and  goods  demanded  by  the  caprice  of  fashion  or  the  whims 
of  exclusiveness.  Except  for  carpets,  97  per  cent,  of  which  are  made  in  this  country, 
and  for  a few  fine  or  fancy  products  of  foreign  looms,  the  wool  now  consumed  in  the 
United  States  is  produced  within  its  borders. 

Very  respectfully, 


J.  R.  DODGE, 


Statistician. 


252  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[The  Raritan  Woolen  Mills,  woolen  manufactures .] 

New  York,  August  6,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Replying  to  your  circular  letter  of  July  29, 1885, 1 would 
say  that  from  an  experience  of  many  years  in  this  business,  and  much 
thought  given  to  a consideration  of  the  substitution  of  specific  duties 
on  woolen  goods  in  place  of  the  compound  duties  at  present  in  force, 
I do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  imposition  of  specific  duties  alone  on 
woolen  manufactures  will  be  found  absolutely  impracticable  for  the 
reasons  here  given : 

Woolen  manufactures,  i.  e .,  goods  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool, 
worsted,  hair,  &c.,  cover  such  an  immense  range  of  values,  weights, 
grades,  finenesses,  &c.,  depending  for  their  value  on  styles,  fashions, 
colors,  and  effects,  that  no  specific  duties  alone  can  be  applied  which 
will  be  fair  and  equitable  and  likely  to  prevent  fraud. 

For  instance,  one  style  of  cloth  being  of  new  pattern,  stylish,  fash- 
ionable, and  in  demand,  may  be  worth  a given  sum  per  yard;  another 
make  of  identically  the  same  goods  but  of  last  year’s  pattern  may  be 
obtainable  at  50  cents  or  even  25  cents  on  the  dollar.  A specific  duty, 
since  no  distinction  can  possibly  be  made  for  patterns,  can  but  impose 
the  same  rate  on  each,  although  one  may  cost  three  or  four  times  as 
much  as  the  other,  thereby  preventing  the  importation  of  the  cheaper 
article. 

To  illustrate  another  case,  I inclose  two  samples  of  cloth:  these  goods 
are  identical  in  make,  weight,  width,  fineness,  and  color.  No  specific 
duty  could  be  devised  which  would  not  impose  the  same  rate  of  duty  on 
each,  and  yet  the  one  costs  and  is  worth  almost  twice  as  much  as  the 
other,  simply  on  account  of  the  fancy  effect  therein  introduced  which 
happens  to  be  an  expensive  one. 

If  none  but  plain  staple  woolen  cloths  were  imported  it  might  be  pos- 
sible to  devise  a system  of  specific  duties  to  apply  equitably,  but  these 
are  the  very  goods  which  are  made  here  and  not  imported.  The  wool- 
ens which  are  imported  derive  their  principal  value  from  the  fashions 
of  the  day.  The  only  sensible,  practicable,  and  equitable  duty  to  im- 
pose upon  such  goods,  and  the  one  best  calculated  to  prevent  fraud, 
is  the  compound  duty  at  present  existing. 

Yery  truly,  yours, 

DAVID  L.  EINSTEIN. 

Note. — The  samples  mentioned  will  be  transmitted  separately  to  Congress. 


[Spring  Valley  Woolen  Mills,  wool  and  icoolens.] 

Spring  Valley,  Ohio,  November  14,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir  : We  are  opposed  to  a geueral  revision  of  the  tariff  at  the  next 
session  of  Congress,  but  if  wool  is  not  placed  upon  the  free  list  the  pres- 
ent system  of  compound  duties  upon  woolen  must  be  maintained  or 
manufacturers  will  sutler  most  seriously. 

Respectfully, 

I.  M.  BARRETT  & CO. 


REVISION  OE  THE  TARIFF. 


253 


[The  Charlottesville  Woolen  Mills.] 

Charlottesville,  Ya.,  November  13,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington,  D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  lam  requested  by  the  National  Association  of  Wool 
Manufacturers  to  write  you  our  views  as  to  repeal  or  modification  of 
existing  tariff  on  woolen  goods.  * * * 

If  capable  of  discussing  such  matters  at  all,  of  which  I am  by  no 
means  sure,  my  convictions  are  most  decidedly  in  favor  of  protection 
to  wool  and  woolens,  without  any  second  choice  whatever  in  the  mat- 
ter, and  that  any  change  in  the  duty  on  these  two  articles  will  be  both 
unwise  and  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the  Democratic  party. 

The  conservative  and  manly  policy  pursued  by  Mr.  Cleveland  thus  far 
has  given  confidence  to  his  political  enemies,  and  largely  silenced  the 
extremists  of  his  own  party,  and  if  he  can  so  influence  legislation  as  to 
prevent  disturbing  effects  upon  business,  which  has  adapted  itself  to 
existing  tariff  laws,  there  seems  good  ground  to  hope  that  the  conserva- 
tive improvement  already  apparent  everywhere  will  continue  and  win 
for  his  administration  the  commendation  of  all  good  men. 

Most  respectfully,  yours, 

H.  C,  MARCHANT, 

President. 


[Walton  & Leland,  woolen  manufacturers.] 

Methuen,  Mass.,  November  14,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , Z>.  C. : 

Sir  : We  are  manufacturers  of  fancy  cassimeres.  We  were  sufferers 
from  the  last  revision  of  the  tariff,  from  the  agitation  of  a question 
which  affects  all,  either  directly  or  indirectly. 

We  earnestly  hope  you  will  do  all  in  your  power  to  allay  the  agitation 
which  will  be  likely  to  arise  this  fall. 

We  hope  there  may  be  no  change  or  revision  in  the  tariff.  Should 
there  be  a change  in  the  wool  or  woolen  tariff,  we  believe  so  long  as  a 
duty  is  levied  upon  wool  that  the  present  system  of  compound  duties 
upon  woolens  should  be  maintained. 

We  remain,  yours,  truly, 

WALTON  & LELAND. 


[Charles  Spencer  & Co.,  Leicester  Knitting  Mills. ] 

Germantown,  Pa.,  November  14, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Sir  : * * * yve  desire  to  say  further,  our  main  reason  for  wishing 
that  the  tariff  on  wool  and  woolens  may  not  be  altered  is  based  on  the 
fact  that  the  more  the  growth  of  wool  is  encouraged  by  protection  the 


254  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

sooner  we  shall  become  a wool  exporting  country.  We  shall  then  be  able 
to  compete  with  foreign  manufacturers  without  the  compound  duties  on 
woolens,  and  duties  on  wool  will  be  no  longer  necessary. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

CHAS.  SPENCER  & CO. 


[F.  W.  & E.  Dammann,  woolen  goods.'] 


Baltimore,  September  28,  1885. 

Sir  : To  your  circular  of  24th  July  we  beg  leave  to  reply,  that  as  we 
are  the  only  wholesale  importing  house  of  woolens — our  principal  item 
of  business — in  this  city,  we  beg  leave  to  defer,  in  the  submission  of 
suggestionsrequested  by  your  circular,  to  the  so  much  greater  interests 
and  experience  of  our  New  York,  &c.,  neighbors.  We  will  say,  however, 
that  we  think  a system  of  only  specific  duties  highly  desirable — indeed, 
necessary — and  would  wish  to  see  it  established,  and  all  ad  valorem  du- 
ties abolished,  if  a practicable  way  can  be  found  for  making  the  necessary 
classifications  or  discrimination  in  regard  to  qualities. 

We  have  the  honor,  sir,  to  be  most  respectfully,  yours, 

F.  WM.  & E.  DAMMANN. 


Hon.  Daniel  Mannings, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. 


[Frank  M.  Hobson,  woolen  goods.] 

Collegeville,  Pa.,  November  18,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.: 

Dear  Sir:  The  undersigned,  manufacturer  of  woolen  goods  at  West 
Consliohocken,  Pa.,  does  hereby  desire  to  protest  against  any  change  in 
the  present  tariff  on  wool  or  woolen  goods,  as  any  material  reduction 
of  the  present  tariff  would  destroy  the  business,  rendering  my  manufac- 
tory and  machinery  of  little  value  and  depriving  my  employes  of  em- 
ployment whereby  they  can  earn  a livelihood. 

Twenty-four  years  of  protective  tariff  has  proved,  by  the  vast  increase 
of  wealth  of  the  country,  to  be  the  true  policy  of  the  nation,  and  as  we 
have  on  former  occasions  tried  low  tariffs  with  very  disastrous  effects 
to  the  people,  we  do  trust  that  American  manufacturers  and  employes 
shall  not  be  injured  for  the  benefit  of  foreign  manufacturers. 
Respectfully, 

FRANK  M.  HOBSON. 


[Perseverance  Worsted  Company,  tariff  legislation.] 

Woonsocket,  R.  I.,  November  11,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning  : 

Dear  Sir:  We  respectfully  and  earnestly  beg  to  suggest  that  for 
some  time  there  should  be  no  further  tariff  changes.  Trade  is  at  pres- 
ent only  just  getting  into  a healthy  state,  and  any  changes  will  at  once 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


255 


end  to  check  it  and  bring  about  another  depression  similar  to  the  de- 
pression existing  since  the  1883  changes  up  to  tbe  past  three  months. 
It  is  needless  for  us  to  poiut  out  that  the  apprehension  of  tariff  changes 
at  once  upsets  all  business  confidence,  and  has  at  once  very  depressing 
influences  upon  trade  until  business  men  can. determine  and  arrange 
their  business  accordingly. 

We  would  suggest  that  until  a thorough  and  suitable  tariff  bill  is 
framed  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  business  and  trade  of  this 
country,  that  the  present  tariff  remain  as  it  is,  and  that  the  business 
men  be  given  a guarantee  that  for  so  many  years  they  can  rely  upon 
there  being  no  changes,  thereby  enabling  business  men  to  have  confi- 
dence, and  that  for  some  time  they  can  figure  definitely  on  a settled 
basis. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

Perseverance  Worsted  Coompany. 


[Beach  & Co.,  dye  stuffs  and  woolen  manufactures .] 

Hartford,  Conn.,  October , 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington  : 

Sir  : In  response  to  your  circular  of  the  29th  July,  we  won  Id  state 
that  in  our  business  of  importers  and  dealers  in  general  merchandise 
we  give  special  attention  to  dye-stuffs,  chemicals,  and  other  articles  for 
the  consumption  of  textile  manufacturers  ; sometimes  wool  and  yarns. 

Most  of  the  dye-stuffs  when  in  the  crude  state  are  already  free  from 
duty  under  the  present  tariff,  and  many  of  the  manufactured  articles 
are  taxed  at  specific  rates. 

Some  of  these  rates  are  so  high  a-s  to  prohibit  importation.  The 
principal  exceptions  to  specific  rates  are  aniline  dyes,  including  most  of 
the  dyes  made  from  coal-tar  products,  and  the  various  extracts  of  dye- 
woods,  indigo,  &c. 

If  duties  are  to  be  retained  on  these  articles  they  might,  in  our  opin- 
ion, be  readily  made  specific  to  a great  extent,  without  deteriment  to  the 
revenue  or  to  any  business  interests  of  the  country.  On  extracts  of 
dye-woods,  &c.,  we  should  consider  one-half  cent  per  pound  on  liquid 
and  1 cent  on  solid  as  equivalent  to  the  present  tax ; on  extracts  of 
indigo,  1 cent  per  pound  on  the  paste  and  20  cents  on  the  dry  carmined 
as  a full  average,  and  ample  for  covering  the  difference  in  the  cost  of 
labor  in  this  and  foreign  countries.  A specific  duty  on  aniline  and 
kindred  dyes,  in  consideration  of  the  range  in  prices,  might  appear  to 
.be  unjust;  not  so,  in  our  opinion. 

The  character  of  these  dyes  subjects  them  to  undervaluations  by  dis- 
honest importers  more  than  any  article  with  which  we  are  acquainted. 

Many  of  them  are  sold  in  this  country  for  account  of  the  foreign  man- 
ufacturers, whose  processes  of  manufacture  are  to  a great  extent  secret, 
and  also,  when  possible,  the  composition  of  the  dyes.  There  is  no 
standard  of  value,  and  from  their  nature  there  can  be  none.  Conse- 
quently there  is  no  true  market  value. 

A slight  difference  in  shade  that  happens  to  be  fashionable  in  any 
season  makes  a great  difference  in  price.  The  quantity  of  any  one  color 
produced  makes  a great  difference  in  cost.  No  expert  can  test  these 
dyes  and  say  what  is  their  value.  To  a great  extent  the  price  depends 


256  REPORT*  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

upon  the  reputation  and  guaranty  of  the  maker  and  the  seller.  They 
can  be,  and  no  doubt  have  been,  invoiced  under  false  names.  They 
can  be,  and  probably  have  been,  introduced  into  other  dyes  that  are 
free  for  the  purpose  of  escaping  duty  entirely. 

We  believe  a uniform  rate  of  20  cents  per  pound,  with  25  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  on  the  home  valuation  for  the  highest  limit,  would  raise  as 
much  revenue  in  the  long  run,  and  be  as  much  real  protection  to  our 
home  manufacturers,  although  in  some  cases  it  might  be  nominally  less 
than  the  present  ad  valorem  rates  on  the  better  class  of  dyes  made 
here. 

This  would  be  a low  rate  on  the  high-cost  imported  dyes ; but  as 
these  do  not  compete  with  home  manufactures  to  any  extent,  and  are 
a substitute  for  dyes  already  free  of  duty,  such  as  cochineal, 'indigo, 
cudbear,  &c.,  it  would  be  but  little  if  any  loss  to  the  revenue  if  a 
lower  comparative  rate  of  duty  should  increase  the  importation  of  the 
higher-cost  dyes. 

Even  the  low  grades  are  now  highly  concentrated,  and  the  higher 
prices  are  more  on  account  of  fashion  or  quality  of  color  rather  than 
the  strength  of  the  dye. 

As  in  nearly  all  fabrics*  quality  of  color  in  a large  degree  deter- 
mines the  market  value,  there  should  be  the  least  possible  hindrance 
placed  in  the  way  of  the  use  of  the  best  dyes  by  our  manufacturers. 

There  is  no  other  reason  than  the  expense  why  the  colors  of  our  home 
fabrics  should  not  be  equal  to  foreign.  Although  ad  valorem  duties 
are.  in  most  cases,  more  equitable  when  goods  are  honestly  invoiced,  we 
think  under  all  the  circumstances  a specific  rate  for  the  coal-tar  dyes 
would  be  for  the  best  interests  of  the  country,  the  consumers,  and  the 
honest  importers. 

Specific  duties  which  may  be  only  a moderate  tax  when  laid  fre- 
quently become  excessive  after  a short  time,  in  consequence  of  improved 
methods  of  production  or  new  sources  of  supply  greatly  reducing  the 
first  cost. 

For  instance,  blue  vitriol  (sulphate  of  copper)  in  1883,  when  the  pres- 
ent rate  of  3 cents  per  pound  was  laid,  was  worth  5 cents,  and  now  can 
be  bought  at  3J  cents  in  this  country  and  about  3-^-  or  less  abroad.  Bi- 
chromate of  potash  was  then  selling  here  at  15J  cents,  now  at  9J;  the 
present  value  in  England  being  about  6§  cents,  the  duty  of  3 cents  per 
pound  amounts  to  45  per  cent.  Bichromate  of  soda  is  a new  article, 
used  as  a substitute  for  the  bichromate  of  potash,  being  equally  good 
for  some  purposes  and  less  cost. 

Under  the  similitude  clause  the  duty  on  this  is  assessed,  and  perhaps 
justly,  at  3 cents  per  pound,  equal  to  about  75  per  cent,  upon  the  cost 
to  the  foreign  dyer. 

This  is  an  article  of  large  consumption  by  dyers  and  calico  printers. 
By  the  latter,  it  is  used  in  connection  with  sugar  of  lead,  worth  in 
Europe  now  about  cents,  the  duty  6 cents,  with  the  expenses,  mak- 
ing about  100  per  cent,  above  the  cost  to  the  foreign  consumer.  The 
present  market  price  here  11  to  11£  cents.  Other  articles  might  be 
mentioned  showing  the  unequal  effect  of  specific  duties. 

The  most  notable  illustration  of  this  is  wool,  as  on  this  staple  the 
baneful  effect  is  most  serious. 

The  rates  nominally  made  up  upon  the  basis  of  33J  per  cent,  duty 
are  actually  about  50  per  ceut.  upon  such  fine  clothing  wools  as  our 
manufacturers  are  now  forced  to  import  or  to  stop  their  mills.  Upon 
the  average  qualities  now  to  be  found  in  the  markets  of  the  world  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  257 

rate  would  probably  be  fully  100  per  cent.,  and  on  many  parcels  availa- 
ble to  foreign  manufacturers  the  duty  would  be  much  higher. 

It  is  not  so  much  the  prices  actually  paid  by  the  manufacturer  for  his 
materials  that  makes  the  difference  in  the  success  of  his  business  as 
whether  the  cost  to  him  is  as  low  as  to  his  competitors. 

It  is  not  for  the  interest  of  the  woolen  manufacturer  that  wool-growers 
should  find  their  business  unprofitable.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  vital 
to  the  success  of  the  wool-grower  that  his  only  customers,  i.  e .,  the 
home  manufacturers,  should  be  able  to  do  a living  business,  until  he  is 
willing  to  raise  wool  for  export.  - 

Prices  of  domestic  wools  have  probably  been  as  low  the  past  two 
years  as  they  would  have  been  if  it  had  been  free  of  duty,  perhaps  even 
lower,  and  the  demand  much  less,  as  our  tariff  favors  the  import  of  fine 
wools  in  the  form  of  the  manufactured  fabrics,  rather  than  in  the  raw 
state. 

Our  specific  duty  puts  most  of  the  fine  foreign  wools  out  of  the  com- 
petition of  American  buyers.  The  consequence  is  the  foreign  manu- 
facturer buys  them  at  his  own  prices,  and  sends  us  his  fabrics  at  less 
price,  including  our  high  duty,  than  they  can  be  made  by  our  manufact- 
urers. Many  of  our  mills  are  therefore  idle.  Ad  valorem  duties  are 
the  most  equitable  when  tbe  true  cost  or  values  of  the  goods  can  be  as- 
certained, especially  so  if  based  upon  home  valuation,  and  honestly 
collected. 

It  appears  to  us  that  the  rule  of  the  British  Government  is  eminently 
just,  and  might  be  adopted  in  this  country  to  the  mutual  benefit  of  the 
whole  people — honest  importers,  and  the  revenue. 

The  workings  of  this  law  in  Great  Britain,  we  understand,  have 
proved  satisfactory.  Goods  are  declared  at  their  market  value  at  the 
principal  ports  of  entry.  We  quote : 

Secs.  29  and  30.  In  case  of  dispute  as  to  the  proper  rate  of  duty,  importers  to  de- 
posit the  amount  of  duty  demanded,  and  such  deposit  shall  be  deemed  the  proper  duty 
payable,  unless  an  action  be  brought  or  commenced  within  three  months.  In  the 
event  of  such  action  being  determined  against  the  revenue,  full  indemnity  to  be  made 
to  the  importer. 

Sec.  57.  Where  ad  valorem  goods  have  been  detained  as  undervalued,  the  officers 
must  give  a written  notice  of  such  detention  to  the  person  entering  the  same,  and  of 
the  value  thereof,  as  estimated  by  them.  If  such  goods  be  retained  for  the  use  of  the 
Government,  the  value  as  entered,  with  an  addition  of  5 per  cent,  and  the  duties 
already  paid  on  such  entry,  to  be  paid  to  the  owner. 

So  far  as  the  values  of  merchandise  enter  at  all  into  the  question  of 
the  rate  of  taxation  by  our  tariff,  specific  duties  are  undoubtedly  based 
upon  the  values  here  rather  than  upon  the  costs  abroad,  which  may 
differ  considerably  at  various  points  of  shipment. 

The  principle  of  home  valuation  is  therefore  acknowledged  to  be  cor- 
rect by  the  advocates  of  specific  duties. 

When  coupled  with  ad  valorem  rates,  it  has  the  further  merit  of  being 
just.  This  also  avoids  the  necessity  for  a complicated  classification  of 
articles,  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  various  qualities  of  widely  dif- 
ferent values.  It  is  simple  and  easily  understood.  It  takes  away  the 
inducement  from  foreign  shippers  to  undervalue  their  invoices,  and  the 
suspicion  by  our  own  people  that  we  are  suffering  from  such  frauds, 
when,  perhaps,  the  trouble  in  our  business  maybe  nearer  home. 

It  bears  more  equally  upon  the  importers  and  consumers.  Based 
upon  foreign  valuations,  the  highest  cost  goods  pay  a higher  tax  than 
lower  cost,  when  both  are  of  the  same  intrinsic  value.  In  rapid  fluctu- 
ations of  the  markets  the  same  article  may  pay  quite  a different  rate 
of  duty  when  shipped  from  different  ports,  or  only  in  a few  days  differ- 
S.  Ex  72 17 


258  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE/  TREASURY. 

ence  in  time ; and  the  one  that  can  least  afford  to  pay  must  pay  the 
most.  With  the  present  facilities  for  rapid  communication  by  cables, 
and  transportation  by  steam,  business  has  become  exceedingly  close. 
Our  merchants  are  obliged  to  compete  with  those  of  the  whole  world. 

It  is,  therefore,  important  that  they  should  be  put  upon  as  favorable 
a footing  as  the  foreign  shipper.  The  latter  consigns  his  goods  here, 
invoiced  at  the  lowest  price  he  considers  safe  for  passing  the  customs. 
This  may  be  considerably  lower  than  the  American  merchant  can  buy 
them  at  the  same  time.  He  may  be  unable  to  buy  them  at  all  without 
materially  advancing  the  market,  as  the  goods  are  held  by  the  foreign- 
ers, who  know  from  their  agents  here  the  state  of  our  markets.  On 
high  duty  goods  a moderate  difference  in  the  invoice  prices  would,  in 
the  duty  alone,  give  the  foreign  shipper  the  business.  He  is  well  aware 
of  this  advantage,  and  acts  accordingly.  Our  own  merchants  are  thus 
forced  out  of  the  business,  as  they  cannot  compete  on  equal  terms. 

It  is  a difficult  matter  to  state,  with  any  degree  of  accuracy,  how  far 
our  firm  has  suffered  by  the  competition  we  have  had  from  undervalued 
invoices.  In  the  aniline  dye  business  we  have  no  doubt  it  has  been  to 
a very  large  amount,  this  being  a class  of  merchandise,  as  we  have 
stated  before,  that  no  one  can  state  positively  what  the  true  market 
price  is  at  any  time,  as  each  maker  has  his  own  prices,  and  no  expert 
can  say  they  are  less  than  they  have  cost  the  shippers.  This  appears 
to  be  a case  where  a specific  duty,  although  about  as  unequal  as  the 
present  duty  on  fine  wool,  might  be  the  only  one  which  would  be  fair, 
as  being  the  only  way  to  serve  all  importers  alike. 

If  there  were  no  considerable  variations  in  prices  or  quality  of  im- 
ported articles  there  would  be  no  objection  to  specific  duties ; it  would 
be  a fair  and  simple  method  of  taxation;  but  in  the  constant  change  in 
market  values,  as  in  the  illustrations  before  mentioned,  and  the  great 
difference  in  quality  and  values  of  many  articles,  a specific  duty  may  be- 
come very  burdensome. 

When  the  specific  rates  of  10  cents  and  12  cents  tier  pound  were  first 
imposed  upon  clothing  wools  by  the  acts  of  1864  and  March,  1807,  the 
values  were  about  double  present  prices.  The  duty  of  20  cents  per 
pound  on  washed  wool  was  only  about  30  per  cent. ; the  same  duty  of 
20  cents  being  now  60  per  cent,  on  the  values  of  the  average  of  domestic 
washed  fleece  wools  in  the  home  markets ; or,  in  other  words,  at  the 
present  time  the  specific  duty  of  10  cents  is  20  per  cent,  higher  than  the 
combined  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties  at  that  time  of  10  cents  and  11 
per  cent. 

This  works  in  the  favor  of  the  foreign  manufacturer,  who,  getting  his 
materials  free  from  taxation,  cau,  with  his  cheap  labor,  pay  the  high  rate 
of  duty  based  upon  the  foreign  valuation  of  his  fabrics  and  still  under- 
sell our  manufacturers,  even  if  he  invoices  liis  goods  honestly. 

We  can  see  no  simple  and  effectual  remedy  for  this  other  than  a tariff' 
based  upon  home  valuations,  with  perhaps  light  specific  duties  in  special 
articles  where  values  cannot  be  readily  ascertained,  or  where  the  varia- 
tions in  intrinsic  value  are  slight,  as  in  some  of  the  metals  and  common 
chemicals. 

Duties  upon  raw  or  partially  manufactured  materials  that  are  con- 
sumed by  our  manufacturers,  just  so  far  as  they  raise  the  cost  of  such 
materials,  evidently  nullify  the  nominal  protection  by  the  tariff  on  the 
finished  goods.  Just  so  far  they  give  the  foreign  competing  manufact- 
urer the  advantage  over  our  own,  and  raise  the  prices  to  the  ultimate 
consumer  of  the  goods,  and  so  far  lessen  his  ability  to  consume. 

Manufacturers  have  been  induced  to  invest  capital  in  various  enter* 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


259 


prises  under  tbe  delusion  that  they  had  an  advantage  over  the  foreign 
manufacturer  from  a “protective”  tariff,  not  knowing  that  the  same 
tariff  enhanced  the  cost  of  their  products  to  an  equal  or  greater  extent. 
The  materials  for  many  woolen  goods  are  thus  increased  in  cost  more 
than  the  duty  on  the  finished  fabrics,  and  the  manufacture  of  such 
goods  must  result  in  failure  when  attempted  in  this  country  so  soon  as 
they  experience  the  full  effect  of  foreign  competition. 

A judicious  increase  of  the  free-list,  and  a duty  upon  partially  manu- 
factured materials,  graduated  somewhat  in  proportion  to  the  labor  and 
taxes  paid  for  their  protection,  would  inure  to  the  benefit  not  only  of  the 
manufacturer,  but  more  to  the  ultimate  consumer  of  the  manufactured 
products.  No  manufacture,  unless  it  be  a monopoly,  can  remain  for  a 
long  time  unduly  profitable  in  this  country.  Competition  is  sure  to  re- 
duce profits  after  a short  time  to  the  average  of  other  business  requir- 
ing equal  capital  and  skill. 

Our  house  has  been  in  business  for  more  than  fifty  years,  and  in  all 
that  time,  as  now,  closely  connected  with  and  interested  in  various 
manufacturing  operations.  From  our  observation  and  experience  we 
have  learned  that  a high  tariff  is  not  of  necessity  protection , either  to  the 
laborers  or  to  the  employers.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  usually  a snare 
and  delusion. 

It  is  our  firm  belief  that  the  labor  of  our  country  would  be  better 
protected  and  manufacturers  be  upon  a much  sounder  basis  with  free  ra  w 
materials  and  a moderate  duty  upon  the  manufactured  products  to  com- 
pensate for  our  higher  cost  labor.  A tariff  that,  keeping  the  present 
taxes  upon  spirits  and  tobacco,  would  raise  such  additional  revenue  as 
may  be  required  for  the  needs  of  the  Government  would,  in  our  opinion, 
be  quite  sufficient. 

This,  with  an  honest  and  sound  currency,  would  enable  us,  with  the 
blessings  of  our  free  institutions,  educated  work-people,  and  natural 
resources,  to  increase  and  cheapen  the  cost  of  all  our  products,  so  as 
not  only  to  increase  consumption  and  the  comforts  of  the  masses  in  our 
own  country,  but  to  secure  a fair  proportion  of  the  trade  of  the  world. 
We  cannot  have  this  unless  we  can  produce  our  goods  about  as  cheap 
as  other  countries,  however  favorable  may  be  the  treaties  we  make  with 
non -manufacturing  nations. 

We  have  hesitated  and  delayed  sending  you  this  letter  on  account  of 
its  length,  and  not  being  in  exact  accordance  with  the  requests  in  your 
circular. 

We  understand,  however,  that  you  wish  for  a free  expression  of  the 
views  of  business  men,  which  we  have  given  you,  leaving  you  to  give 
them  such  consideration  as  they  may  be  worth,  in  your  opinion,  and  are, 
Very  respectfully, 


BEACH  & CO. 


[The  Keystone  Mill,  ivoolen  manufactures .] 

Philadelphia,  October  12,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , J).  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  As  I understand  you  to  have  expressed  a desire  to  get 
all  information  as  to  the  effects  of  the  working  of  the  present  tariff,  I 
wish  to  explain  the  unequal  bearing  on  our  special  business  of  cotton 
and  worsted.  As  we  are  weavers  only,  and  not  spinners  also,  we  of 


2 GO  REPORT  OE  THE  SECRETARY  OF  TIIE  TREASURY. 


course  have  to  buy  our  yarns  either  in  this  country  or  else  import  them. 
Many  yarns  that  we  use  are  not  yet  made  well  in  this  country,  and  are 
obliged  to  import  them,  and  we  hud  on  worsted  yarns  the  average  duty 
and  expense  is  about  79  per  cent.,  whereas  the  duty  on  onr  manufactured 
goods,  including  cost  of  labor,  will  not  average  above  70  per  cent.,  and 
puts  a protection  oil  these  foreign  manufacturers  equal  to  9 per  cent.  If 
you  notice,  you  will  find  the  importation  of  worsted  goods  and  stuff  from 
Bradford,  England, is  gradually  increasing,  while  other  things  are  falling 
off,  the  increase  for  October,  i«885,  alone  being  £30,000,  and  the  whole 
difficulty  of  our  business  is  not  so  much  the  want  of  protection  as  it  is  its 
unequal  division,  from  the  raw  wool  up.  It  is,  of  course,  the  purpose  of 
protection  to  protect  labor,  but  we  find  in  our  business  that  raw  mate- 
rial, i.  e .,  wool  and  yarns,  are  protected  more  than  the  manufactured 
and  finished  goods,  which  is  equivalent  to  putting  a premium  on  for- 
eign labor.  Now,  if  it  is  the  intention  to  put  a just  balance  of  protec- 
tion on  our  class  of  business,  each  branch  should  be  protected  as  to  the 
amount  of  labor  that  goes  into  it;  that  is  to  say,  if  wool  is  protected  to, 
say,  10  per  cent.,  yarns  should  be  protected  25  per  cent.;  then  manu- 
factured goods  50  per  cent.  Then  labor  would  be  protected  through 
each  industry. 

If  you  go  into  the  details  of  the  tariff,  as  no  doubt  you  have  done 
thoroughly,  you  will  find  this  lop-sided  principle  of  protection  in  many 
businesses  besides  our  own.  I know  that  in  the  umbrella-manufactur- 
ing business  they  experience  the  same  unequal  tariff.  Whereas  the 
cloths  are  protected  at  one  rate  of  duty,  the  Jin'shed  umbrella  can  be 
imported  at  the  same  or  less,  which,  as  in  our  business,  puts  a premium 
on  foreign  labor  to  make  them. 

As  a manufacturer,  it  certainly  would  be  to  my  interest  to  have  free 
trade  rather  than  the  present  unequal  tariff , but  the  labor  throughout 
the  country  would  have  to  suffer. 

It  is  my  desire  in  this  letter  to  simply  call  your  attention  to  the 
unequal  discrimination  in  our  business,  knowing  that  as  far  as  your 
authority  goes  the  business  of  the  country  will  be  benefited  by  your 
experience  and  ability. 

I remain,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

A.  L.  MOORE. 


[Alfred  Dolge,  piano  felt.] 

New  York,  February  — , 1885. 

The  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Washington , I).  G. : 

Dear  Sir:  Agreeable  to  your  wish,  I hand  you  herewith  a compara- 
tive statement  of  the  cost  of  manufacturing  piano-felt  in  Germany  and 
America,  and  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  following  explanation: 

The  manufacture  of  this  article  is  a specialty,  which  requires  consid- 
erable scientific  skill  and  an  unusual  large  capital. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  1 would  state  that  there  are  at  present  only  two 
factories  in  England,  two  in  France,  four  in  Germany,  and  one  in 
America,  i.  e.,  mine  at  Dolgeville,  N.  Y. 

The  English  and  French  makes  are,  at  present,  not  competing  for 
this  market,  because  of  their  inferior  quality,  while  the  German  make 
is  nearly  as  good  as  my  own,  and  the  consumers  are  inclined  to  favor 
it  simply  on  accouut  of  its  lower  price. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


261 


In  compiling  the  annexed  statement  I have  started  with  a medium 
grade  of  wool,  and  based  mty  calculation  on  the  presupposition  that  the 
same  person  starts  two  factories  of  equal  manufacturing  capacity  of 
50,000  pounds  of  piano-felt  per  year,  under  exactly  parallel  circum- 
stances, one  of  which  is  situated  in  Germany  and  the  other  in  America. 

The  figures  given  are  absolutely  correct  as  to  the  respective  cost 
price  of  buildings,  machinery,  rates  of  interest,  insurance,  and  taxes,  <&c. 

You  will  perceive  that  the  American  manufacturer  is  placed  at  once 
under  great  disadvantage  in  procuring  his  raw  material,  in  comparison 
with  the  German  manufacturer,  on  account  of  the. duty  of  30  cents  per 
pound  and  the  higher  freight  and  custom  house  charges,  which  com- 
pel him  to  invest  a cash  capital  of  $50,000  in  his  stock  of  wool,  &e., 
and  on  which  he  must  pay  interest,  insurance,  and  taxes,  against  only 
$20,000,  which  are  necessary  to  stock  same  with  in  Germany  with  the 
same  quantity  and  quality  of  wool,  &c  The  German  manufacturer  has, 
besides,  the  advantage  of  lower  rates  for  interest,  insurance,  and  taxes. 

The  next  item  is  labor,  the  calculation  of  which  is  also  based  on  actual 
facts,  except  being  well  aware  that  I am  paying  about  one-third  higher 
wages  than  other  woolen  mills  in  this  country,  because  I am  forced  to 
employ  skilled  labor,  and  must  recompense  accordingly.  It  is  a well- 
known  fact  that  in  Europe  female  labor  is  used  much  more  extensively 
than  in  America;  hence  the  extraordinary  great  difference  in  cost  of 
labor,  which  in  this  case  is  over  500  per  cent. 

The  item  u expenses”  is  positively  correct,  and  can  easily  be  ascertained. 
A building  which  would  cost  in  Germany  $50,000  cannot  be  put  up  in 
America  for  less  than  $150,000,  and  my  factory  at  Dolgeville,  with  a 
capacity  of  50,000  pounds,  cost  even  $170,000. 

Machines  which  I have  bought  in  Germany  for  $500  cost,  after  adding 
freight,  duty,  &c.,  laid  down  in  New  York,  nearly  $1,000,  and  if  the 
same  machine  is  built  in  America  it  will  cost  from  $1,000  to  $1,200. 

Consequently  the  American  manufacturer  must  invest  for  building 
and  machinery  $140,000  more  than  his  German  competitor  to  make  the 
same  amount  of  felt,  and  on  these  $140,000  he  must  pay  the  higher  rates 
of  taxes,  insurance,  and  interest. 

In  my  calculation  I figure  only  5 per  cent,  for  wear  and  tear  of  ma- 
chinery for  both  manufacturers,  a rate  which  in  these  times  of  progress 
and  invention  is  decidedly  too  low,  and  10  per  cent,  is  the  rate  which  I 
actually  have  adopted  in  my  mills.  This  rate,  if  taken  for  both  manu- 
facturers, would  again  be  so  much  more  in  favor  of  the  German  manu- 
facturer that  it  would  enable  him,  by  adding  to  the  price  of  his  goods 
the  present  rate  of  duty,  to  place  the  same  goods  on  the  New  York 
market  fully  25  per  cent,  lower  than  the  American  competitor  possibly 
can  produce  them. 

As  long  as  the  German  manufacturers  are  contented  with  a certain 
share  of  the  trade,  and  ask,  say,  only  10  per  cent,  less  for  their  goods 
than  the  American  manufacturer,  just  so  long  the  home-made  goods 
have  a chance,  provided  they  are  of  superior  quality,  and  just  so  long 
is  the  American  manufacturer  suffered  to  make  a small  profit,  while  his 
foreign 'Competitor  makes  a profit  of  40  to  50  per  cent,  on  his  invest- 
ment. Such  a state  of  affairs  is,  however,  only  possible  in  times  of  pros- 
perity. The  very  moment  that  business  gets  dull  and  consumption  re- 
duced down  goes  the  price  of  foreign  felts,  and  the  American  manufact- 
urer must  cither  close  his  mill  or  sell  at  a killing  loss.  I can  prove  the 
above  through  my  books  during  the  ten  years  from  1875  to  1885,  which 
period  allows  a fair  average. 

At  present  I find  myself  in  the  latter  position.  The  foreign  goods 
are  offered  so  much  lower  that  I cannot  possibly  get  dollar  for  dollar; 


262  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


hence  the  increased  importation  of  piano  felt,  as  custom-house  entries 
show;  hence  the  fact  that  I had  to  discharge  a number  of  my  operators. 

I beg  to  point  out  to  you  where  and  how  our  present  taritf,  in  my 
opinion,  based  on  my  experience,  is  unjust  to  the  American  manufact- 
urer, and  in  reality  protects  the  foreign  labor  and  capital  and  not  home 
industry. 

The  taritf  on  wool  says:  When  value  at  last  port  shall  be  30  cents 
per  pound  or  less,  duty  per  pound  scoured,  30  cents. 

Woolen  goods. — If  value  not  over  80  cents  per  pound,  35  cents  per 
pound  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

If  value  over  80  cents  per  pound,  35  cents  per  pound  and  40  per  cent, 
ad  valorem. 

Now,  if  100  pounds  of  wool  cost  in  Loudon  $48,  and  it  takes  153 
pounds  of  wool,  which  cost  $73.85,  30  cents  per  pound  equals  $46.00,  or 
63  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

One  hundred  pounds  of  felt  made  of  such  wool  in  Germany  cost  $120, 
on  which  the  duty  is  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  $48;  35  cents  per  pound, 
$35;  total,  $83,  or  70  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

The  German  manufacturer  pays  $83  duty  ou  the  manufactured  ar- 
ticle. 

The  American  manufacturer  pays  on  the  raw  material,  to  produce 
the  same  article,  the  same  quantitj7,  duty  $46.50,  a difference  of  $36.50. 

But  against  this  difference  of  duty  in  favor  of  the  American  manu- 
facturer, the  latter  has  the  following  disadvantage  against  him: 


A.  Differeuce  in  wages  on  100  pounds  of  felt $55  00 

B.  Running  expenses  of  factory 48  20 

Total 103  20 

Deduct  hereof  the  above  difference  of 3(5  50 

Leaves  a balance  of 6G  70 


against  the  home  manufacturer  and  in  favor  of  foreign  production. 

In  my  statement  I have  put  labor  against  labor,  time  against  time. 
It  is,  however,  a fact  that  the  average  American  workman  will  produce 
more  in  a given  time  than  the  average  workman  in  Germany,  and  we 
have  there,  in  reality,  an  offset  of  about  $20  on  the  labor  item  of  my 
statement. 

Deducting  these  $20  from  the  difference  of  $66.70,  there  still  remains 
an  undisputable  balance  of  $46.70  against  home  manufacture,  which 
amount  is  just  about  equal  to  the  amount  of  duty  on  wool,  of  which  100 
pounds  of  felt  can  be  made,  which  the  American  manufacturer  must  pay. 

Unless  this  duty  on  the  raw  material,  “ wool,”  is  taken  off',  or  a specific 
duty  in  correct  proportion  to  the  duty  on  wool  and  the  increased  ex- 
pense of  manufacturing  in  America  adopted,  the  woolen  manufacturer 
of  America  cannot  compete  with  Europe,  except  in  the  lower  grade  of 
goods,  where  cheap  machinery  and  comparatively  little  manual  labor  is 
used,  because  the  tariff  rates  are  the  same  on  finer  grades  as  on  lower 
grades  of  goods.  It  is  a fact,  to  which  I need  hardly  call  your  atten- 
tion, that  the  finest  woolen  goods  are  not  and  cannot  be  manufactured 
here  at  remunerative  rates  or  at  at  any  profit,  on  account  of  the  present 
tariff. 

AYhenever  a woolen  manufacturing  business  requires  fine  wool,  skilled 
labor,  and  costly  machinery,  the  manufacturer  and  his  workmen  are  not 
protected  against  cheap  labor,  cheap  wool,  cheap  machines,  and,  finally, 
cheap  money,  of  the  European  competitors. 

Four  years  ago  I sent  my  younger  brother  to  Europe  for  the  purpose 
of  studying  the  manufacture  of  broadcloth  and  other  fine  cloths,  and 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


263 


it  was  my  intention  to  start  a clotb  factory  at  Dolgeville,  in  connection 
with  iny  felt  mill. 

After  four  years  he  came  back,  with  the  highest  diplomas  of  Leeds 
College,  as  an  expert  cloth-maker,  with  the  most  thorough  knowledge  of 
felt  industries  of  England,  France,  and  Germany. 

Calculations  as  to  the  cost  of  manufacturing  these  fine  cloths  here 
convinced  me  at  once  that  it  is  impossible  to  compete  against  Europe 
with  our  duties-on  wool,  high-priced  labor,  &c.,  and  the  comparative 
low  duty  on  the  manufactured  article,  and  I am  to-day  compelled  to  im- 
port cloth  from  Europe  and  send  money  there  which  would  give  employ- 
ment to  a great  number  of  hands,  if  I could  make  the  cloth  in  this 
country. 

Finding  it  difficult  to  compete  against  the  German  piano-felt  makers, 
but  anxious  to  keep  my  men  employed,  I started  the  manufacture  of 
felt  shoes;  but  here  again  my  goods  cost  about  40  per  cent,  more  than 
the  imported  article,  and  I can  sell  only  a limited  quantity  because  they 
are  of  better  quality. 

At  present  the  only  alternative  for  the  manufacturer  is  to  either  close 
his  factory,  or  reduce  wages — which  latter  should  certainly  be  the  very 
last  resort,  because  it  will  create  a social  question  which  it  may  be  very 
difficult  to  solve,  as  the  critical  condition  of  the  labor  question  in  Europe 
shows  us. 

We  must  give  our  laborers  more  than  just  a living;  the  natural 
resources  of  the  country  warrant  it. 

Unless  a change  in  the  tariff  is  made,  I must  sooner  or  later  give  up 
the  struggle  and  close  my  mill,  because  I will  not  and  cannot  employ 
pauper  labor. 

If  the  present  tariff  for  wool  remains  in  force  I should  think  the  fol- 
lowing specific  duty  on  piano-felt  would  be  just  for  the  importer  and 
the  home  manufacturer: 

Duty. 


Piano-felt,  if  market  value  not  over  $1.20  per  pound $1  40 

Piano-felt,  if  market  value  not  over  $1.50  per  pound 1 50 

Piano-felt,  if  market  value  not  over  $2  per  pound 1 60 

Piano-felt,  if  market  value  not  over  $2.50  per  pound 1 70 

Piano-felt,  if  market  value  over  $2.50  per  pound 1 80 


The  home  manufacturer  should  have  the  right  to  get  from  custom 
authorities  the  valuations  at  which  his  foreign  competitors  enter  their 
goods. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

ALFRED  DOLGE. 


COST  OF  ONE  HUNDRED  POUNDS  PIANO-FEUT  MANUFACTURED  IN  GERMANY. 

(A)  Wool : 

100  pounds  scoured  Cape  cost  in  London $48  00 

Freight  and  shipping  expenses  to  Germany 50 

100  pounds  scoured  Cape  cost  at  factory 48  50 


100  pounds  of  wool  make  65  pounds  of  felt,  consequently  the  wool  for  100 

pounds  of  felt  costs 74  62 

» (B)  Labor: 

Men,  72  hours  per  week,  at  $3.60,  per  hour  5 cents ; women  72 
hours  per  week,  at  $1.44,  per  hour  2 cents.  It  takes  350  hours 
of  work  to  make  100  pounds  of  felt,  of  which  in  Germany  200 


hours  are  men’s  work,  at  5 cents  per  hour $10  00 

150  hours  are  women’s  work,  at  2 cents  per  hour 3 00 

Total  for  labor 13  00 


2G4  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


(C)  Expenses.  Capital  required  for  plant  in  Germany  : 

Buildings  cost  ' $50,  000 

Machinery  costs 40,  000 

Stock  necessary  to  be  carried  to  make  50,000  pounds  of  felt  per 
year,  wool  and  felt  in  process 20, 000 


Total 110,000 


Interest  on  $110,000  at  4 per  cent,  per  annum $4,  400 

Wear  and  tear  of  machinery,  5 per  cent,  per  annum  on  $40,000..  2,000 

Coal,  4 tons  per  day,  at  $4  per  ton,  500  days 4, 800 

Fire  insurance,  2 per  cent,  on  $110,000 2,200 

Office  expense,  clerk  hire,  &c 1, 500 

Taxes  on  real  estate,  &,c.,  valuation  $50,000,  at  2 per  cent 1, 000 


50,000  pounds  of  felt  can  he  made  at  an  expense  of 15, 900 

100  pounds  of  felt $31  80 

119  42 

Duty,  40  per  cent,  on  $120 $48  00 

35  cents  per  pound 35  00 

— 83  00 


202  42 

100  pounds  German  felt  cost  in  New  York  including  duty 202  42 


COST  OF  100  POUNDS  PIANO-FELT  MANUFACTURED  IN  AMERICA. 


(A)  Wool : 

100  pounds  scoured  Cape  cost  in  London $48  00 

Freight,  shipping,  and  custom-house  expenses 4 50 

Duty,  30  cents  per  pound 30  00 


100  pounOs  Cape  scoured  cost  at  factory 82  50 

100  pounds  of  wool  make  65  pounds  of  felt,  consequently  the  wool  for  100 

pounds  of  felt  costs Ill  63 

(B)  Labor : 


Men  work  60  hours  per  week  at  $12,  per  hour  20  cents ; 
women  work  60  hours  per  week  at  $4.80,  per  hour  8 cents. 
It  takes  350  hours  of  work  to  make  100  pounds  of  felt,  of 


which  in  America  300  hours  are  men’s  work  at  20  cents  per 

hour 60  00 

50  hours  are  women’s  work  at  8 cents  per  hour 8 00 


Total  for  labor 68  00 

(C)  Expenses.  Capital  required  for  plant  in  America : 

Buildings  cost : 150,000  00 

Machinery  costs 80,000  00 

Stock  necessary  to  be  carried  to  make  50,000  pounds  of  felt 
per  year,  wool  nearly  double  value,  delivered  at  factory  on 
account  of  duty 50,  000  00 


280,000  00 


Interest  on  $280,000  at  6 per  cent,  per  annum 16, 800  00 

Wear  and  tear  of  machinery,  5 per  cent,  per  annum  on  $80,000..  4,  000  00 

Coal,  4 tons  per  day  at  $3.50  per  ton,  300  days 4,200  00 

Fire  insurance,  2 per  cent,  on  $280,000  5,600  00 

Taxes  on  real  estate,  &c.,  valuation  $100,000,  at  2 per  cent 2,000  00 

Office  expenses,  clerk  hire,  &c 6, 600  00 


50,000  pounds  of  felt  can  bo  made  at  an  expense  of 39, 200  00 

100  pounds  of  ftdt 78  40 


258  03 

100  pounds  of  felt  made  in  America,  all  conditions  equal,  cost 258  03 

100  pounds  of  felt  from  Germany,  all  duty  paid  in  New  York,  cost 202  42 


Difference  iu  favor  of  foreign  goods 55  61 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


265 


[The  Vassalboro’  Woolen  Mills,  ivoolen  manufactures.'] 

North  Vassalboro’,  Me.,  July  29,  1885. 

Hod.  Daniel  Manning-, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir:  The  variety  in  costs,  qualities,  and  styles  of  our  produc- 
tions is  such  that  it  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  give  satisfac- 
tory answers  to  the  questions  in  your  circular  of  the  27th  instant. 

It  would  be  very  desirable,  if  possible,  to  have  specific  duties  on  woolen 
goods,  but  owing  to  the  variety  of  values  and  qualities  it  would  not  be 
practicable  to  formulate  a schedule.  The  revision  of  1883  and  the  preva- 
lence of  undervaluations  have  forced  us  to  curtail  our  production  one- 
half. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

R.  A.  CLOGHER, 

Treasurer. 


[Hors well  & French,  woolens.] 

Boston,  August  26,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  circular  of  July  28,  we  have  to  say  that  we 
think,  after  an  experience  of  thirty  years  in  importing  woolens,  that 
the  present  system  of  compound  duties  offers  as  little  temptation  for 
fraud  as  any  that  can  be  devised.  A purely  specific  duty  would  have 
to  be  fixed  upon  the  square  yard  or  upon  the  weight  of  the  goods,  and 
of  course  graduated  according  to  the  quality  and  cost  of  the  goods, 
which  would  offer  the  same  temptation  for  undervaluation  as  now 
exists. 

We  would  like  to  call  your  attention  to  one  phase  of  this  subject  that 
has  caused  some  trouble  to  honest  importers  resident  here,  and  that  is 
the  practice  of  certain  houses  abroad  of  offering  their  goods  to  the  trade 
here  by  sample,  they  not  being  the  makers  of  the  goods,  but  jobbers, 
pure  and  simple.  They  pay  no  taxes  here,  but  draw  upon  their  large 
stocks  kept  at  home  and  cut  into  short  lengths,  such  as  they  obtain 
orders  in  this  country  for,  and  invoice  the  goods  at,  and  pay  duty  on, 
the  price  of  the  manufactures  per  full  piece.  In  this  way  they  are  able 
to  undersell  us  here.  We  have  to  take  the  risk  upon  full  pieces  aud 
pay  duties  upon  the  same,  while  they  send  forward  only  the  cut  ends, 
which  they  sell.  We  maintain  that  goods  cut  into  these  short  lengths 
should  pay  a higher  duty  than  the  full  pieces,  or,  rather,  they  should  be 
put  up  in  value  above  the  price  of  the  manufacture  per  full  piece,  and 
that  they  should  be  compelled  to  declare  the  price  at  which  they  have 
sold  the  goods  as  the  dutiable  value.  This  would  raise  the  rates  upon 
such  cut  ends  some  20  to  25  per  cent,  above  the  prices  they  are  now 
paying  duty  upon,  and  would  seem  to  us  just  and  proper,  as  the  true 
value  of  the  goods  to  the  parties  to  whom  the  goods  are  sold  is,  of 
course,  the  price  they  pay. 

The  temptation  to  frauds  and  undervaluation,  when  the  average  rate 
of  duty  is  about  70  per  cent.,  will  always  be  great,  and  we  doubt  if  human 
ingenuity  can  devise  a perfect  system  to  prevent  this  so  long  as  the 
present  excessive  rate  of  duty  prevails. 

Very  respectfully, 


HORSWELL  & FRENCH. 


266  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[Nichols  & Farnsworth,  lastings  und  serges.] 

Boston,  October  16,  1885. 

Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  circular  of  July  28,  1885,  asking  for  informa- 
tion regarding  goods  with  which  we  are  familiar,  would  say  that  of  late 
years  oar  importations  have  been  confined  almost  exclusively  to 
“Union”  (cotton  and  worsted)  lastings  and  serges,  and  that  while  we 
have  no  knowledge  of  any  systematic  undervaluation,  we  are  strongly 
of  the  opinion  that  a better  mode  of  assessment  could  be  devised  than 
that  now  in  force.  These  goods  are  bought  abroad  by  the  piece  of  30 
or  more  yards,  usually  either  28J  iuches  or  34  inches  wide,  and  are 
graded  by  the  number  of  threads  in  one-quarter  of  one  inch,  and  are 
so  known  to  the  trade — that  is,  one  counting  nine  threads  is  called  a 
nine,  one  counting  twelve  a twelve,  and  so  on. 

As  now  assessed  under  Schedule  K,  all  counting  sixteen  and  under 
pay  18  cents  per  pound  and  35  per  cent.;  above  sixteen,  24  cents  per 
pound  and  35  per  cent.,  which  is  about  66  per  cent,  on  the  dutiable 
value,  as  the  following  table  of  one  bale  in  each  width  taken  from  our 
invoice-book  of  the  past  year  will  show. 

The  odd  numbers  above  eleven  threads  are  very  rarely  imported. 


Bale 

number. 

Quantity. 

Quality. 

Width. 

Yards. 

Dutiable 

value. 

1 

Weight. 

Duty. 

Dutiable 

value. 

Square 

yards. 

Duty  per 
square 
yard. 

2504 

Pieces. 

40 

Thread. 

9 

Inches. 

28J 

1,358 

$273  00 

Pounds. 

501 

$185  73 

Per  cent. 
68 

1,  075 

$0  17 

2514 

42 

9 

34 

1,414 

343  00 

616 

230  93 

67 

1,  3:  6 

17 

2497 

42 

10 

28§ 

1,438 

302  00 

538 

202  54 

67 

1, 138 

18 

2515 

42 

10 

34 

1,416 

361  00 

647 

242  81 

67 

1,337 

18 

2517 

42 

11 

28$ 

1,426 

317  00 

547 

209  41 

66 

1,  129 

m 

2518 

40 

11 

34 

1,358 

361  00 

616 

237  23 

66 

1,  282 

18 

2520 

42 

12 

284 

1,436 

339  00 

568 

220  89 

65 

1, 137 

19 

2500 

42 

12 

34 

1,425 

380  .00 

688 

256  84 

67 

1,346  . 

19 

2505 

42 

14 

284 

1,440 

368  00 

617 

239  86 

65 

1, 140 
967 

21 

2538 

30 

14 

34 

1,024 

310  00 

518 

201  74 

65 

21 

2539 

42 

1G 

284 

1,478 

423  00 

710 

275  85 

65 

1, 170 

23  J 

2548 

21 

10 

31 

733 

252  00 

433 

166  14 

66 

692 

24 

2553 

21 

18 

284 

715 

242  00 

326 

162  94 

67 

566 

29 

2553 

21 

18 

34 

712 

288  00 

402 

197  28 

68 

673 

29 

2545 

20 

20 

. 284 

657 

281  00 

360 

184  75 

66 

520 

35 

2545 

20 

20 

34" 

646 

336  00 

429 

220  56 

66 

610 

36 

The  first  line  of  the  table,  read  across,  shows  that  bale  No.  2504  con- 
tained 40  pieces  of  9-thread  lasting,  28J  inches  wide  and  1,358  yards 
long;  that  the  dutiable  value  was  $273,  the  weight  501  pounds,  and 
the  duty,  $185.73,  equal  to  about  68  per  cent,  on  the  dutiable  value,  or 
reducing  1,358  yards,  28 J inches  wide,  to  square  yards,  17  cents  per 
square  yard.  The  other  lines  are,  of  course,  to  be  read  the  same  way. 

In  our  opinion,  the  duty  should  be  assessed  upon  the  square  yard,  and 
graded  according  to  quality,  and  if  it  is  the  policy  of  the  Government 
to  collect  the  same  amouut  it  now  receives,  a fair  equivalent  would  be  : 
All  “Union”  lastings  and  serges  counting  fourteen  threads  or  less  in 
one  quarter  of  an  inch,  18  cents  per  square  yard ; over  fourteen  and 
not  over  eighteen,  25  cents  per  square  yard ; over  eighteen,  35  cents  per 
square  yard. 

But  if  the  revenue  is  to  be  reduced,  would  suggest  the  following : 

All  “Union”  lastings  and  serges  counting  fourteen  threads  or  less  in 
one  quarter  of  oue  inch,  12  cents  per  square  yard ; over  fourteen  and 
not  over  eighteen,  17  cents  per  square  yard ; over  eighteen,  22  cents 
X>er  square  yard. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


267 


The  two  great  objections  to  the  present  system  are:  First,  that  the 
goods  are  made  to  the  tariff,  that  is,  when  they  fall  very  near  a divid- 
ing line,  they  are  made  heavy  to  decrease  the  cost  per  pound,  and  when 
unalterably  within  either  rate,  made  light  to  lessen  the  duty  per  pound. 
Second,  that  any  decided  change  of  price  is  liable  to  throw  some  grades 
from  one  rate  into  another,  makiug  it  often  impossible  for  the  importer 
to  know  the  cost  of  his  goods  until  after  the  liquidation  of  his  entry  at 
the  custom-house. 

Any  further  information  in  our  possession  we  would  be  happy  to  give 
you. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

NICHOLS  & FARNSWORTH. 


[Benj.  C.  Potts,  woolen  manufaclvres.'] 

Philadelphia,  Pa., 

August  15,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , 7).  C.: 

Sir:  I have  from  the  newspapers  your  circular  asking  information 
and  views  of  manufacturers  on  the  general  subject  of  the  operation  of 
the  present  system  of  laws  for  the  collection  and  levy  of  the  Federal 
revenues  by  means  of  tariffs  upon  importations. 

In  the  manufacture  of  coarse  quarter-blood  woolen  flannels  I have 
compared  the  cost  of  our  Colorado  wools  with  that  of  same  grade  used 
by  a Canadian  manufacturer,  and  find  that  he  can  put  his  scoured  wool 
on  his  cards  for  ten  cents  per  pound  less  than  it  costs  me.  This  amount 
in  a small  three-set  mill,  using  00-inch  cards,  and  spinning  an  average  of 
16  cwt.  yarn  with  about  1,000  pounds  raw  wool  per  day  of  ten  hours, 
aggregates  $100  per  day  as  his  advantage  over  me,  or  $30,000  per  year. 
If  1 spiu  warp  and  filling  for  100  looms  I should  have  to  run  3 sets  double 
time,  or  employ  6 sets  for  that  amount  of  work,  using  double  the  above 
quantity  of  wool,  and  be  compelled  to  employ  $60,000  more  than  my 
Canada  competitor.  The  wages  of  carding  and  spinning  that  amount 
of  wool  amount  to  from  $125  to  $140  per  week  of  day  work,  or  about 
$7,000  per  year  of  day  work,  $14,000  per  year  of  double  time.  You  will 
readily  see  how  I could  largely  increase  the  pay  of  my  hands  if  I could 
compete  with  my  Canadian  acquaintance  upon  an  otherwise  equal  basis 
of  cost. 

In  conversation  with  a California  manufacturer  of  flannels  in  which  I 
complained  of  his  competition  in  our  Eastern  markets,  and  asked  why 
he  did  not  send  his  goods  to  the  Pacific  States  of  South  America,  he 
demonstrated  to  me  that  the  same  kind  of  discrimination  in  our  system 
operated  against  him  and  in  favor  of  the  English  and  German  manu- 
facturers to  the  extent  of  25  cents  per  pound  upon  the  grades  of  wool 
he  used,  or  upon  the  basis  of  above,  from  $250  .to  $500  per  day  in  the 
cost  of  the  raw  material  alone. 

There  is  an  element  of  cost  in  the  price  of  wool  here  which  I cannot 
explain,  but  which  I think  is  a consequence  of  the  tariff.  I can  charter 
a ten-ton  car  here  to  bring  wool  from  any  territorial  shipping  point  to 
Philadelphia  for  $100,  or  J cent  per  pound  ; but  I am  compelled  if  1 buy 
wool  here  to  buy  it  with  freight  charges  upon  it  amounting  to  from  3 to 
5 cents  per  pound.  It  looks  as  though  the  railroad  companies  and  not 
the  wool  growers  get  the  advantage  of  the  tariff. 


268  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Another  matter  of  which  I have  no  personal  knowledge,  but  which  T 
think  may  be  substantiated  with  facts,  for  they  are  openly  stated  here, 
is  this : We  are  compelled  to  use  low  grade  oils  for  our  stock  and  ma- 
chinery because  of  the  high  prices  of  better  grades.  It  is  freely  stated 
that  certain  manufacturers  import  as  soap-stock  some  of  the  hnest 
foreign  oils  by  mixing  them  with  various  fatty  substances  before  ship- 
ping, enter  them  at  low  rates  of  duty,  and  by  simple  process  here  furnish 
themselves  with  material  of  the  very  best  quality  for  their  manufacture. 
This  is  a discrimination,  if  true,  not  of  the  law,  but  of  the  method  of  its 
administration  against  me  and  in  favor  of  my  domestic,  not  foreign 
neighbor. 

I think  raw  materials  should  be  free.  I think  finished  manufactured 
goods  should  be  subjected  to  such  rates  of  duties  as  would  produee  the 
best  revenue  consistent  with  the  largest  marketable  importations.  Per- 
haps all  manufactured  goods  should  be  so  subjected.  There  is  always 
a normal  market  for  foreign  goods.  If  free  of  duty,  the  importations 
would  not  exceed  that  normal  market  under  ordinary  conditions.  If 
subjected  to  duties,  either  specific  or  ad  valorem,  there  is  a limit  within 
which  importations  would  not  decrease.  To  that  limit,  with  the  largest 
free  list  possible  without  injustice,  we  ought  to  be  able  to  adjust  our- 
selves. I think  it  would  increase  the  value,  if  not  the  price,  of  wool  to 
the  wool  growers  by  compelling  more  equable  and  equitable  rates  of 
freights. 

If,  with  a tariff  gradually  adjusted  to  the  basis  I have  suggested,  the 
navigation  laws  could  be  so  reformed  as  to  induce  the  organization  of 
a mercantile  marine  for  the  seeking  out  of  foreign  markets  for  our  goods, 
I have  not  a doubt  that  every  future  year  would  witness  the  healthy 
growth  of  our  great  industrial  interests  and  the  consequent  increased 
happiness  of  our  entire  community. 

Very  respectfully, 

BENJ.  C.  POTTS. 


[The  same.] 


Philadelphia,  11,  2,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning: 

Dear  Sir:  I reinclose  letter  of  8,  15,  with  permission  to  make  such 
public  use  of  it  as  you  may  desire.  Much  might  be  added  to  it,  illus- 
trative of  the  present  condition  of  things.  For  instance:  I lrad  occa- 
sion some  time  ago  to  purchase  a cloth  finishing  machine.  I found  I 
could  get  what  I wanted  f.  o.  b.,  Saxony,  for  £125  ($625),  that  freight 
and  insurance  would  be  about  $60,  but  that  the  tariff  and  other  charges 
connected  with  its  importation  made  it  no  cheaper  than  similar  machines 
made  in  Woonsocket  for  $1,075;  and  this  discrimination  against  me 
obtains  in  nearly  every  article  which  I require  as  capital  in  my  business. 
I am  compelled  to  employ  probably  twice  as  much  capital  as  would  be 
required  under  fair  business  conditions,  at  the  same  time  that  the  market 
is  growiug  more  and  more  narrow  by  the  compulsory  competition  which 
the  present  system  produces. 

Very  truly, 


BENJ.  C.  POTTS. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


269 


[Chas.  H.  Merriman,  woolen  manufactures.'] 

Providence,  July  29,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  I have  your  circular  letter  of  17th  instant,  and  note  in- 
quiries contained  therein.  The  business  in  which  I am  engaged  is 
the  manufacture  of  woolen  goods  for  men’s  wear,  made  from  either  for- 
eign or  domestic  wool,  according  to  the  quality  or  style  of  cloth  re- 
quired. As  our  raw  material  has  to  pay  a heavy  duty  we  require  an 
equivalent  duty  on  the  manufactured  article  to  put  us  on  a par  with  our 
foreign  competitors.  We  ought  also  to  have  a duty  on  cloth  to  cover 
the  duties  we  pay  indirectly  on  all  the  supplies  which  we  use  and  to 
enable  us  to  pay  higher  wages  then  are  paid  abroad.  The  true  way  to 
put  the  woolen  interests  on  a proper  footing  would  be  to  admit  wool 
free  or  at  a very  small  duty  and  reduce  the  tariff  on  goods  to  a moderate 
tariff.  I feel  sure  that  in  the  long  run  the  growers  of  wool  would  not 
be  injured  by  tais  policy,  and  all  others  would  be  immediately  benefited 
by  it,  but  I realize  that  the  Western  farmers  and  their  representatives 
cannot  be  made  to  see  this,  and,  therefore,  it  is  useless  to  discuss  the 
question. 

While  I freely  admit  that  it  would  be  a great  gain  if  specific  could 
take  the  place  of  ad  valorem  duties,  I cannot  think  of  any  method  in 
which  specific  duties  can  be  applied  to  woolen  fabrics  without  the  great- 
est inequality  and  unfairness.  The  present  duty  is  partly  specific  and 
partly  ad  valorem,  the  specific  being  supposed  to  furnish  an  equivalent 
for  the  duty  on  the  raw  material  and  the  ad  valorem  for  the  other  items 
referred  to  above.  To  make  the  duty  entirely  specific  would  either 
overtax  the  poor  man’s  cloth  or  admit  the  rich  man’s  broadcloth  with  a 
very  small  duty,  neither  of  which  things  should  be  done.  It  will  there- 
fore be  absolutely  necessary  to  keep  the  tariff  on  woolens  about  where 
it  is  until  such  time  as  the  Western  farmers  learn  by  experience  that  the 
high  tariff  on  wool  does  not  benefit  them  and  become  ready  to  let  in 
wool  at  a low  tariff.  The  last  time  the  tariff  was  ciianged  a larger 
amount  was  taken  off  of  goods  than  from  wool,  which,  of  course,  worked 
to  the  injury  of  the  wool  manufacturers,  and  by  destroying  their  ability 
to  pay  good  prices  for  wool  has  forced  down  the  price  of  wool  much 
more  than  the  reduction  in  the  tariff  on  wool  would  naturally  warrant. 
The  farmer  seeing  this  great  reduction  in  the  price  of  his  product  has 
laid  it  to  the  lower  tariff  on  wool,  but  the  true  reason  is  the  lower  tariff 
on  goods.  The  average  farmer  to  day  would,  if  left  to  himself,  restore 
the  duty  on  wool  and  leave  the  duty  on  goods  where  it  now  is,  thereby 
committing  suicide,  as  I fully  believe.  If  the  ad  valorem  duty  on  goods 
could  be  levied  upou  the  value  of  the  goods  in  this  market  instead  of 
the  foreign  value,  the  greatest  fraud  could  be  put  a stop  to,  for  it  is  a 
notorious  fact  that  unscrupulous  manufacturers  on  the  other  side  are 
driving  honest,  decent  men  out  of  the  exporting  business  by  their  meth- 
ods of  swearing  to  invoices  that  are  purposely  made  lower  than  they 
ought  to  be.  A lower  rate  of  tariff  so  applied  would  yield  more  to  the 
Government  than  the  present  tariff,  and  home  industry  would  be  better 
protected,  because  fraud  would  be  easier  to  detect,  I have  no  data 
upon  which  to  make  the  comparisons  of  cost  between  foreign  and  do- 
mestic production,  and  cannot,  therefore,  answer  the  questions  in  your 
circular.  I can  only  give  my  views  on  the  general  question,  holding 
myself  in  readiness  to  answer  any  specific  questions  you  may  ask. 

Yery  truly,  yours, 


OHAS.  H.  MEFJtIMAN. 


270  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

[The  Philadelphia  Textile  Association,  woolen  manufactures .] 

Philadelphia,  September  26,  1885. 

Hod.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary , Treasury  Department , Washington , _D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  Yonr  circular  letter  addressed  to  this  association,  through 
its  secretary,  some  weeks  since,  was  duly  received ; and  in  reply  the 
managers  would  say,  that  while  we  appreciate  your  desire  to  so  simplify 
the  customs  laws  that  frauds  upon  them  may  be  prevented,  still  we 
believe  that  to  attempt  this  by  the  adoption  of  specific  duties  would 
lead  to  more  serious  evils  than  those  which  it  is  desired  to  escape. 

Especially  would  this  be  the  case  in  Schedule  K,  wool  and  woolens, 
in  which  this  association  has  the  greatest  interest.  Even  if  there  were 
no  tariff  upon  wool,  we  know  no  principle  upon  which  specific  rates  of 
duty  in  this  schedule  could  be  levied ; but  when  we  consider  the  com- 
plications that  must  arise  in  consequence  of  a tariff*  upon  this  article 
we  are  unable  to  see  a possibility  of  framing  a schedule  for  wool  and 
woolens  without  doing  great  fnj ury  to  some  interests.  We  are  aware 
that  the  French  tariff*  attempts  to  equalize  the  rates  of  duty  in  the 
woolen  schedule  by  making  the  duty  dependent  upon  the  number  of 
meters  per  kilo  in  the  case  of  yarns,  and  upon  the  number  of  grams  per 
square  meter  in  the  case  of  cloths;  but  unless  wool  be  spun  to  the  high- 
est count  the  stock  will  bear,  rates  of  duty,  levied  upon  these  principles 
alone,  must  discriminate  against  either  the  higher  or  lower  grades  of 
yarns  and.  fabrics.  Wool  costing  80  cents  per  scoured  pound  is  fre- 
quently spun  to  a no  higher  count  than  one  costing  40  cents;  and  these 
two  qualities  of  yarn  are  woven  into  cloths  having  the  same  number  of 
grams  per  square  meter;  hence  rates  of  duty  placed  upon  these  yarns, 
and  the  fabrics  made  of  them,  that  would  be  equitable  in  the  case  of 
the  lower  grades  would  be  insufficient  in  the  case  of  the  higher;  and  an 
attempt  to  remedy  this  by  making  the  rates  sufficient  to  protect  the 
higher  grades  would  give  rates  upon  the  lower  that  would  be  absolutely 
prohibitory;  or  which  would  offer  top  great  a temptation  to  escape  either 
by  smuggling  or  by  false  statements  of  quantities.  The  truth  is,  the 
varying  qualities  of*  wool,  we  believe,  preclude  any  attempt  to  frame  a 
schedule  of  rates  for  its  products  which  shall  be  equitable  in  its  appli- 
cation, and  the  duty  upon  it,  if  possible,  makes  the  task  still  more 
difficult. 

We  believe  that  many  of  the  interests  which  we  represent  have  suf- 
fered greatly  in  consequence  of  undervalues  in  invoices,  which  ad  valo- 
rem rates  of  duty  offer  temptations  to  attempt,  and  we  greatly  appre- 
ciate what  has  been  accomplished  by  your  Department  in  mitigating 
this  evil,  and  would  gladly  render  you  any  assistance  in  our  power  to 
stay  it,  but  after  a careful  consideration  of  the  subject  we  see  no  way  to 
accomplish  it  iu  the  line  proposed. 

But  even  if  it  were  possible  to  frame  schedules  of  specific  rates  of 
duty  upon  articles  of  manufacture  in  which  this  association  is  inter- 
ested, that  should  be  just  and  equitable  to  all  interests  involved,  we 
should  deplore  an  attempt  to  do  so  at  this  time.  But  little  more  than 
two  years  have  elapsed  since  the  present  tariff*  went  into  effect,  and 
manufacturers  have  had  to  readjust  their  business  to  conform  to  its 
operations.  It  has  taken  the  full  two  years  to  accomplish  this,  which 
in  conjunction  with  the  general  dullness  of  trade,  which  seems  to  have 
been  world  wide,  has  compelled  mauy  branches  of  the  industry  repre- 
sented by  this  association  to  be  run,  some  at  a positive  loss,  and  others 
with  no  profit  upon  capital  invested.  That  readjustment  has,  in  a rneas* 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


271 


ure,  been  accomplished,  and  there  are  indications  of  a better  condition 
of  business  $ still,  in  all  industries  great  caution  prevails,  and  we  can- 
not but  fear  that  the  country  will  be  set  back  to  the  conditions  existing 
the  past  two  years  should  an  attempt  be  made  to  revise  the  tariff  by 
the  coming  Congress.  The  great  need  of  the  country  is  rest  from  tariff* 
agitation. 

Respectfully  yours, 

THOMAS  DOLAN,  President. 

W.  T.  SEAL,  Secretary. 


[Tlie  San  Francisco  Pioneer  Woolen  Factory,  woolen  manufactures .] 

San  Francisco,  September  11,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , 1).  G. : 

Sir:  We  duly  received  your  circular  of  1st  ultimo,  asking  us  to  give 
our  views  as  to  the  feasibility  of  simplifying  the  tariff  by  making  the 
duties  specific. 

So  far  as  manufactures  of  wool  are  concerned,  we  not  only  think  it 
feasible,  but  very  desirable,  and  suggest  one  uniform  rate  of  80  cents 
per  pound  on  all  manufactures  made  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  except 
yarns. 

On  yarns,  made  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  50  cents  per  pound. 

We  add  a few  illustrations,  showing  that,  on  leading  articles  of  im- 
portation, this  rate  would  be  about  equal  to  the  present  tariff.  Com- 
mon heavy  woolens  are,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  shut  out  by  the 
present  tariff,  and  will  continue  to  be  so  by  the  rate  above  suggested. 

In  the  event  that  a lower  rate  than  80  cents  per  pound  on  manufact- 
ured woolens  be  adopted,  it  would  be  absolutely  necessary  to  remove 
the  duty  on  raw  material,  say,  wool,  shoddy,  &c.,  or  considerably  lower 
the  rates. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servants, 

San  Francisco  Pioneer  Woolen  Factory, 

H.  HEYNEMANN,  President. 

P.  S. — We  are  not>  posted  on  carpets,  and  do  not  know  how  the  pro- 
posed rate  would  affect  that  article. 

ILLUSTRATION. 

Shawls,  weighing  2 pounds  each,  costing  abroad  $30  per  dozen ; present  duty,  35 
cents  per  pound  and  35  x>er  cent,  ad  valorem,  equal  to  $1,574  each ; new  duty  equal  to 
$1.60  each. 

Cassimeres,  24  ounces  per  yard  for  £,  cost  abroad  $1.75  per  yard;  present  duty, 
35  cents  per  pound  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  equal  to  $1,224  per  yard  ; new  duty, 
$1.20  per  yard. 

Worsted  dress  goods,  34  ounces  per  27  inches,  cost  abroad  204  cents  ; present  duty, 
7 cents  per  square  yard  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  equal  to  134  cents  per  yard;  new 
duty,  134  cents  per  yard. 

Underwear,  10  pounds  per  dozen,  cost  abroad  $12  ; present  duty,  35  cents  per  pound 
and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; present  duty,  $8.30  ; new  duty,  $8. 

Worsted  yarn,  cost  abroad,  last  quotation,  72  cents  per  pound;  present  duty, 24 
cents  per  pound  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  equal  to  49$$,  cents ; new  duty,  50  cents 

per  pound. 


272  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  TIIE  TREASURY. 

[The  Home  Woolen  Mills  Company,  woolen  manufactures.'] 

Hartford,  Conn.,  September , 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular,  dated  29th  July,  was  duly  received  and 
has  had  serious  consideration. 

The  subject  is  of  vital  importance  to  the  wool  and  woolen  industry  of 
this  country,  and  has  received  for  a long  time  past  considerable  of  our 
attention.  Want  of  time  has  prevented  an  earlier  reply. 

We  have  no  doubt  there  have  been  undervaluations  in  tbe  entry  of 
imported  woolens  at  the  customs.  By  collusion  of  tbe  importer  and 
tbe  foreign  shipper,  especially  if  the  latter  is  the  manufacturer  of  the 
goods,  there  would  be  little  difficulty  in  evading  ad  valorem  duties, 
however  expert  a detective  might  be  employed  to  make  the  examina- 
tions and  appraisals. 

Specific  duties  upon  woolen  goods,  if  not  based  upon  values,  are  dif- 
ficult of  adjustments  that  will  bear  fairly  upon  all  classes  and  qualities. 
The  higher-cost  goods,  which  are  luxuries,  would  nearly  escape,  and 
the  low  grades,  which  are  consumed  by  tbe  poorer  classes,  would  be 
heavily  taxed.  If  based  upon  values,  the  duties  become  in  a measure 
ad  valorem  and  subject  to  tbe  same  objections.  Any  efficient  appraisal 
of  the  finer  grades  of  men’s  wear  goods,  such  as  are  manufactured  by 
the  company  which  I represent,  must  be  based  upon  such  an  accurate 
analysis  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  competent  experts. 

The  number  of  picks  per  inch  is  perhaps  tbe  best  single  distinction 
for  values,  but  this  is  only  accurate  when  taken  in  combination  with 
other  qualities. 

An  ad  valorem  duty,  based  upon  the  valuations  in  this  country, 
would  be  the  most  equitable  to  all  classes. 

It  was  the  English  method,  and  so  far  as  we  have  learned  worked  to 
the  satisfaction  of  that  Government,  when  there  were  duties  on  articles 
which  required  ad  valorem  rates.  It  is  no  great  hardship  to  the  importer 
to  pay  duty  in  proportion  to  prices  he  can  realize  for  his  goods,  or  to 
have  them  taken  from  him  at  his  own  valuation,  with  an  addition  of  5 
per  cent.  The  revenue  is  also  protected.  The  method  is  most  simple. 
It  avoids  many  vexations  to  the  importer  in  the  shipments  at  foreign 
ports  and  the  temptation  for  false  invoices.  Home  values  are  easily 
ascertained.  We  do  not  know  that  such  a radical  change  would  meet 
with  favor  by  Congress,  but  we  hope  the  practical  working  of  tbe 
method,  where  it  has  been  in  operation,  may  be  investigated  by  the 
Government. 

The  temptation  to  the  fraudulent  invoicing  of  woolen  goods  comes 
from  the  extreme  high  rates  of  duty  levied  upon  them  by  our  tariff. 
Although  so  high,  these  duties  are  not  equivalent  to  the  taxes  imposed 
by  the  same  tariff  upon  the  materials  of  which  the  finer  classes  of  these 
fabrics  are  made  and  the  necessary  articles  consumed  by  the  laborers 
employed. 

1 hand  you  herewith  a list  of  the  wages  paid  in  our  mill.  These  will 
probably  be  found  to  be  about  50  per  cent,  higher,  on  tbe  average,  than 
are  paid  in  England,  and  fully  double  those  paid  in  Belgium.  For 
some  of  the  skilled  workmen  there  may  be  a greater  difference.  Wage 
rates,  however,  depend  much  upon  the  local  supply  and  demand.  In 
most  manufacturing  centers  of  Europe  there  is  a surplus  of  labor  de- 
pendent upon  tbe  particular  industry  which  is  there  located.  It  cannot 
be  easily  transferred  to  other  localities  or  find  employment  in  other  in- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


273 


dustries.  The  rates  of  wages  are  therefore  .very  low  as  compared  with 
this  country.  Here,  when  one  industry  is  depressed  for  any  length  of 
time,  the  workmen  can  find  other  occupations,  or,  if  all  others  fail,  can 
get  a good  living  for  himself  and  family  off  from  cheap  and  fertile  lands. 
We  must  therefore  expect  high  wages  for  many  years  to  come. 

Legislation  can  have  but  little  to  do  with  the  rates  of  wages,  in  the 
long  run,  except  so  far  as  by  high  or  low  taxes  it  increases  the  cost  of 
the  comforts  and  necessities  of  living. 

We  cannot  pay  high  cost  for  materials  and  high  wages,  and  compete 
with  the  countries  that  get  both  at  low  cost  (and  have  equal  facilities 
for  manufacture)  in  the  prices  of  our  fabrics. 

The  United  States  Census  reports  for  1880  give  the  cost  of  all  the 
materials  consumed  by  the  woolen  mills  of  the  country  as  four  times 
the  amounts  paid  for  wages  and  salaries.  This  will  vary  to  some  ex- 
tent, according  to  the  class  of  labor  employed;  but  even  if  only  three 
times  as  great,  the  addition  of  20  per  cent,  to  the  prices  paid  by  our 
foreign  competitors  for  our  materials  will  be  equivalent  to  the  whole 
possible  difference  in  the  cost  for  labor. 

The  effect  of  our  present  tariff  on  wool  is  to  give  it  to  the  foreign 
manufacturers  at  least  40  per  cent,  below  the  prices  in  this  country  for 
such  as  are  designated  as  u classes  1 and  2.v 

The  fabrics  demanded  by  the  consumers  of  this  country  require  about 
150,000,000  pounds  of  these  wools  in  addition  to  the  home  clip,  taking 
the  weight  in  the  grease,  as  usually  marketed.  This  must  be  imported, 
either  in  the  raw  state  or  manufactured,  in  the  form  of  yarns  or  fabrics. 
The  present  tariff  favors  the  importation  of  fabrics,  and  much  the  larger 
portion  is  imported  in  that  form. 

The  lowest  possible  duty  on  raw  wool,  10  cents  per  pound  in  the 
grease,  on  that  costiug  30  cents  per  pound,  is  33^  per  cent.  Actually, 
there  is  very  little  greasy  wool  now  worth  30  cents  in  foreign  markets; 
aud  the  little  there  is,  anywhere  near  that  price,  sells  above  its  relative 
value  on  account  of  our  American  competition. 

The  average  value  of  the  greasy  wools  of  the  world,  as  purchased  by 
foreign  manufacturers,  is  probably  not  over  12  cents  per  pound. 

The  duty  on  this  would  be  above  80  per  cent. 

The  value  of  such  as  was  imported  for  the  last  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30, 1885,  was  only  about  20  cents  per  pound  on  the  average;  mak- 
ing the  duty  about  50  per  cent.  At  the  public  sales  now  taking  place 
in  Loudon  wools  have  been  purchased  as  low  as  8 cents  per  pound,  to 
be  shipped  to  the  United  States.  The  duty  on  these  will  be  fully  GO 
per  cent.,  which,  with  the  expenses  of  importation,  commissions,  &c., 
will  make  the  cost  to  the  consumer  here  fully  70  per  cent,  above  what 
it  would  cost  the  English  manufacturer.  These  wools  are  bought  with 
reference  to  the  payment  of  10  cents  per  pound  duty,  and  are  therefore 
probably  far  from  being  so  cheap  to  the  consumer,  who  has  no  duty  to 
pay,  as  many  other  parcels  at  the  same  sales;  probably  not  nearly  so 
cheap  as  the  average.  We  submit  for  your  inspection,  as  illustrating 
this  matter,  a catalogue  of  a public  sale  of  7,250  bales,  of  which  G.277 
bales  were  sold,  with  the  prices  obtained  for  each  lot,  and  the  calcula- 
tion (in  red  ink)  of  the  duty  on  each  by  our  tariff.  On  only  3G2  bales 
would  the  duty  have  been  less  than  50  per  cent. ; on  1,853  bales,  be- 
tween 50  and  60  per  cent.;  on  1,270,  GO  to  70  per  cent.;  on  1,038,  70  to 
80  per  cent.;  on  967  bales,  80  to  100  per  cent.;  on  696  bales,  100  to  200 
per  cent.;  and  above  200  per  cent,  on  82  bales.  Of  course  nearly  all  of 
this  wool  is  out  of  the  range  of  American  competition,  and  can  only  be 
imported  in  the  manufactured  state. 

3,  Ex.  72 18 


274  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

The  low  prices  at  which  the  foreign  manufacturer  gets  these  wools, 
with  his  lower  priced  labor,  enables  him  easily  toovercome  the  high 
rates  of  duty  on  the  fabrics.  In  fact,  they  are  less  on  the  latter  than 
they  would  be  on  the  .materials  from  which  they  are  made.  The  conse- 
quence is  that  much  of  our  woolen  machinery  is  idle.  Much  of  that 
which  is  running  is  uot  profitable,  and  we  are  in  danger  of  a large  im- 
portation of  fabrics  for  the  next  season,  instead  of  the  raw  materials. 
If  this  wool  were  free  of  duty,  the  prices  abroad  would  be  much  higher, 
and  the  cost  to  the  foreign  manufacturers  nearly  the  same  as  to  ours. 
If  there  is  to  be  any  duty  on  wools  it  should  be  ad  valorem,  as  there  is 
no  article  of  merchandise  on  which  specific  ‘duties  are  so  unequal,  and 
no  article  that  can  be  more  readily  valued  by  expert  appraisers.  Nearly 
all  the  wool  is  also  sold  at  public  auction,  and  the  prices  obtained  are 
available  by  our  consuls.  The  duty  on  wool  does  not  help  the  wool 
grower.  The  effect  is  to  cause  the  importation  of  fabrics,  whereas,  if 
imported  in  the  raw  state,  much  domestic  wool  would  be  used  mixed 
with  the  foreign,  and  our  home  growers  would  furnish  at  least  half  the 
wool  for  the  goods  now  made  wholly  of  the  foreign.  Free  wool  would 
also  enable  our  idle  mills  to  start  up,  and  we  could,  after  a short  time,  ex- 
port some  of  our  goods,  making  a foreign  market  for  home-grown  wools. 

The  present  wool  tariff  puts  every  possible  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the 
manufacturer.  The  double  duty  on  washed  and  threefold  rate  on 
scoured  is  prohibition  on  the  importation  in  these  forms.  As  there  is 
no  scoured  wool  marketed  that  will  shrink  less  than  10  per  cent.,  the 
duty  is  really  37  to  40  cents  per  pound  on  clean  wool.  If  advanced  one 
stage  towards  manufacture  it  is  also  prohibitory.  The  decision  that 
carded  or  combed  wool  (“tops”)  is  subject  to  double  the  rate  of  scoured, 
i.  e .,  60  or  72  cents  per  pound,  renders  the  importation  in  this  shape  im- 
possible. This  is  a great  advantage  enjoyed  by  the  foreign  manufact- 
urer, who,  in  buying  “tops,”  can  get  the  exact  quality  of  stock  required 
for  his  yarns,  and  in  any  quantity  wanted. 

In  the  next  stage  of  manufacture — yarns — the  duty  is  somewhat  more 
favorable,  but  the  lowest  possible  on  fine  yarns  is  at  just  80  cents  in 
value=65  per  cent.  If  only  a fraction  higher  cost,  the  duty  is  93  per 
cent.  This  is  again  impracticable,  to  any  great  extent,  and  at  the  value 
of  $1  the  duty  is  still  75  per  cent.  As  it  takes  1J  to  1^  pounds  of 
yarns  to  make  a pound  of  finished  goods,  and  the  rate  of  duty  is  the 
same  on  both,  it  follows  that  it  is  much  cheaper  to  import  the  cloth 
ready  made  than  yarns  at  range  between  80  cents  aud  $1.25.  This  is 
the  range  most  required  for  the  manufacture  of  the  finer  fabrics,  which 
might  be  made  here  to  advantage  under  a fair  adjustment  of  duties. 

When  it  is  considered  that  the  labor  in  making  the  yarns  is  only 
about  one- third  that  required  for  the  finished  cloth,  the  “protection” 
appears  to  be  all  in  favor  of  foreign  laborers  and  manufacturers  of 
fabrics. 

Some  of  the  finer  cloths  imported  from  England  cost  there  28s.  per 
yard,  weighing  about  1 pound.  The  duty  on  such  at  our  compound 
rates  is  only  45  per  cent.  On  the  materials  from  which  such  cloth  is 
made  the  rate  would  be  very  much  higher.  Such  materials  are  not 
grown  in  this  country  to  any  extent.  No  manufacturer  could  afford  to 
build  the  plant  for  making  such  goods  under  our  present  tariff.  The 
consequence  is  that  we  must  leave  such  business  to.  foreign  npinufact- 
urers,  who  can  get  the  required  staple  at  the  lowest  cost. 

Probably  more  fine  wool  fabrics  are  consumed  in  the  United  States 
than  by  any  hundred  million  people  of  other  countries,  taking  the  aver- 
age of  all  tiie  inhabitants, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


275 


If  not  hampered  by  the  restrictions  of  our  tariff*,  the  greater  portion 
of  these  would,  after  a little  time,  be  the  production  of  our  home  mills. 

The  tendency  of  the  consumption  is  more  and  more  towards  the 
better  class  of  fabrics.  This  is  oue  reason  why  importations  of  woolen 
fabrics  have  continued  so  large  during  the  time  that  a very  large  por- 
tion of  our  mills  have  been  idle. 

The  special  business  of  our  company  is  the  manufacture  of  the  finer 
grades  of  men’s  wear,  woolen  and  worsted  goods,  known  as  fancy  cassi- 
meres,  suitings,  and  coatings. 

The  cost  of  the  same  varies  according  to  weight  and  quality,  from 
about  $2  per  yard  to  above  $3  for  cloth  one  and  a half  yards  wide. 

The  principal  article  of  consumption  is  wool.  About  one-half  of  this 
is  domestic  growth,  and  the  remainder  is  mostly  Australian.  The 
quality  is  fine  merino. 

Silk  is  largely  used  in  these  goods,  mostly  of  American  manufacture, 
bought  in  the  form  of  fine  thread  or  yarns,  and  costs  from  $5  to  $13  per 
pound.  The  duty  on  this  article  is  30  per  cent,  and  50  per  cent.,  and 
the  cost  here  is  fully  as  much  as  the  foreign  cost,  with  the  addition  of 
the  duty. 

At  present  a large  part  of  the  wool  is  purchased  in  the  form  of  yarns 
(worsteds). 

Some  of  these  are  domestic  manufacture,  but  mostly  made  of  Austra- 
lian merino  wool,  with  probably  an  admixture  of  home- grown.  There 
is  but  little  home-grown  wool  suitable  for  the  best  grades  of  these  yarns. 
We  are  now  obliged  to  import  a considerable  portion  of  our  yarns,  but 
are  restricted  in  this  to  such  quality  as  can  be  entered  at  the  lowest 
rates  of  duty.  On  such  qualities  as  would  be  the  most  desirable,  i.  e ., 
costing  about  85  cents  in  Europe,  the  duty  would  be  69  cents  per  pound, 
equal  to  about  80  cents  on  the  yarn  required  to  make  a pound  of  finished 
goods. 

These  goods,  if  of  foreign  manufacture,  would  probably  be  invoiced, 
at  not  above  $1.20  per  pound.  The  duty  on  the  ready-made  goods 
would  be  only  83  cents  per  pound.  The  duties  on  the  chemicals,  oils, 
&c.,  used  in  making  the  goods,  would  more  than  make  up  the  three 
cents.  There  is,  therefore,  no  protection  whatever  by  the  tariff.  On 
the  contrary,  the  duties  paid  in  a season,  to  run  a mill  on  these  yarns, 
would  be  much  more  than  the  amount  required  to  pay  duties  on  the 
ready-made  goods.  There  is  an  unavoidable  damage  to  more  or  less 
goods,  which  have  to  be  sold  at  half  price.  A very  large  quantity  of 
cloth  is  required  for  samples,  for  which  the  manufacturer  gets  nothing. 

Interest. — In  addition  to  the  interest  on  the  cost  of  plant,  about  a 
year’s  interest  must  be  paid  upon  the  cost  of  labor  and  materials,  to 
cover  the  time  between  the  payment  and  purchase,  and  the  collections 
for  the  goods  sold,  buildings,  machinery,  &c. 

Our  mill  is  built  of  brick,  about  330  by  50  feet,  with  four  floors,  and 
basement.  Wool  house,  dye-house,  and  picker-house  are  in  separate 
buildings,  also  the  boiler  house.  Steam  is  used  for  dyeing  and  heating. 
The  mill  is  run  by  water-power. 

The  cost  of  the  power,  dam,  canals,  flumes,  &c.,  was  about  $100,000; 
the  buildings  for  manufacturing  purposes  cost  more  than  $100,000^ 
and  the  machinery,  consisting  of  18  sets  of  woolen  cards  and  seventy 
looms,  has  cost  at  least  $150,000. 

The  company  also  own  tenements,  for  the  use  of  the  operatives,  costing 
above  $100,000. 

The  whole  cost  of  the  property  has  been  above  $500,000.  It  stands 
upon  the  present  company’s  books  about  $150,000. 


276  REPORT  OE  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

They  have  owned  it  about  five  years,  having  bought  it  from  a previous 
company  that  was  for  a time  successful,  but  in  the  changes  of  business 
were  at  last  obliged  to  give  it  up. 

The  location  is  a good  one,  about  three  hours  from  New  York,  and 
close  to  a railroad  station  about  fifteen  miles  from  tide- water. 

The  business,  as  with  many  other  woolen  mills  the  past  tew  years,  has 
not  been  successful.  The  losses  have  been  made  entirely  in  manufact- 
uring, and  not  by  bad  debts.  The  endeavor  to  keep  the  mill  running 
through  the  past  three  years  of  depression,  in  order  not  to  scatter  the 
employes,  has  probably  resulted  iu  about  the  same  loss  as  would  have 
been  made  by  stopping  the  mill  and  selling  out  the  stock  when  it  was 
evident  that  the  business  must  be  unprofitable. 

It  has  been  hoped  that  there  would  be  a revival  of  the  business  which 
would  allow  of  its  being  done  at  a profit. 

The  very  low  prices  for  wools  in  Europe  were  not  anticipated,  and 
the  full  effect  of  our  tariff  not  understood. 

Goods,  such  as  are  made  by  this  mill,  are  wanted  by  consumers  of 
this  country,  but  under  the  present  tariff  on  wool  and  woolens  the 
competition  from  European  manufactures  is  such  that  only  a very  few 
•mills  that  are  the  best  situated  in  regard  to  reputation,  skilled  work- 
men' surplus  capital,  and  other  favorable  circumstances,  can  succeed. 

The  enstoms  returns  prove  that  the  foreign  manufacturers  have  the 
advantage. 

Even  under  the  great  depression  in  the  woolen  business  here,  when  a 
large  portion  of  the  mills  of  the  country  were  stopped  in  part  or  en- 
tirely, the  importations  of  woolen  manufactures  for  the  fiscal  year  end- 
ing June  30,  1885,  fell  off  only  about  20  per  cent,  as  compared  with  the 
previous  year. 

The  imports  of  wools  of  classes  one  and  two  for  the  same  period 
were  only  about  50  per  cent,  of  the  previous  year. 

If  these  few  raw  wools  had  not  been  imported  more  machinery  would 
have  been  stopped,  and  the  goods  would  have  been  imported  ready 
made  as  fabrics  or  clothing. 

In  the  manufacture  of  these  wools  here  a considerable  portion  of  do- 
mestic wool  was  used,  which  would  not  have  been  if  the  fabrics  had  beeu 
imported. 

The  duty  on  wool  is  a damage  to  the  wool -grower. 

A moderate  tariff  on  the  manufactured  goods  with  free  wool  would 
not  raise  prices  of  the  fabrics  so  as  to  interfere  with  full  consumption 
by  the  laboring  classes. 

It  would  be  of  more  benefit  to  the  wool-grower  than  to  the  manufact- 
urer, as  it  would  start  up  and  increase  the  machinery,  and  make  a de- 
mand for  the  wool. 

It  would  give  the  grower  what  he  most  needs,  customers  and  compe- 
tition for  his  wool.  The  home  grown  will  be  used,  so  far  as  suitable, 
before  the  imported.  Under  the  same  conditions  it  will  have  the  prefer- 
ence. 

Free  wool  would  raise  prices  abroad  to  a point  that  would  make  the 
cost  here  such  as  to  enable  our  growers  to  compete  favorably  on  the 
qualities  adapted  to  their  several  localities. 

It  would  give  them  a steady  market,  and  tend  to  bring  them  in  direct 
communication  with  the  consumers,  saving  the  profits  of  speculators. 
It  is  now  seldom  the  case  that  the  grower  gets  the  advantage  of  an  ad- 
vance iu  market  values. 

The  total  amount  of  wool  brought  into  the  country  each  year  entirely 
free  of  duty,  in  the  form  of  clothing,  must  be  very  large.  Nearly  every 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


277 


passenger  arriving  at  onr  ports  brings  with  him  more  or  less  in  excess 
of  what  he  would  bring  if  the  cost  of  good-quality  cloths  here  did  not 
rule  so  much  above  the  same  in  Europe.  With  free  raw  materials  there 
would  be  no  inducement  after  a little  time. 

The  advantages  of  the  European  manufacturers  of  fine  woolens  are, 
then,  labor  at  half  to  two-thirds  the  cost  in  this  country ; some  dyes 
and  chemicals,  probably  at  an  average  of  two-thirds ; machinery  at  half 
to  two-thirds;  repairs  on  machinery,  probably  about  one-half;  olive  oil 
necessary  for  fine  worsteds,  about  two-thirds ; fuel  at  less  than  half  the 
cost  in  the  Eastern  States ; wool  at  but  little  if  any  more  than  half  the 
cost. 

In  the  latter,  not  only  the  lower  prices,  but  the  access  to  all  the  wools 
of  the  world,  from  which  to  make  selections  of  such  qualities  as  he  can 
use  to  the  best  advantage. 

This  also  leads  to  a division  of  operations  to  a far  greater  extent  than 
is  practicable  in  this  country. 

The  “top”  maker  selects  his  wools;  the  yarn- maker  his  tops;  the 
cloth-maker  his  yarns,  each  in  such  quantity  and  of  such  quality  as  his 
orders  may  require.  To  get  what  he  needs  he  is  not  obliged  to  take  a 
large  proportion  of  such  as  he  does  not  want,  as  is  the  case  here,  where 
the  manufacturer  has  to  either  make  a proportion  of  goods  not  adapted 
to  his  business  or  to  resell  wool  to  a decided  disadvantage. 

All  of  these  advantages  enable  the  foreign  manufacturer  to  do  his 
business  upon  a much  smaller  capital. 

His  fabrics  being  produced  at  so  much  less  cost,  the  losses  by  dam- 
ages or  imperfections  are  much  smaller. 

All  the  above  disadvantages  are  the  direct  effect  of  the  jjresent  war 
tariff,  with  the  exception  of  labor;  and  that  to  some  extent,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  higher  cost  of  living,  it  establishes  for  the  workmen. 

We  think  these  are  in  themselves  enough  to  account  for  the  depres- 
sion of  our  business  the  past  few  years,  although  we  have  no  doubt  this 
has  been  aggravated?  in  a measure,  by  a practice  of  undervaluation  of 
imported  goods. 

In  our  particular  Dranch  of  the  business,  however,  nearly  all  the  for- 
eign goods  are  manufactured  on  orders,  and  the  whole  product  of  par- 
ticular styles  confined  to  one  buyer,  or  at  least  one  for  this  country. 
No  other  buyers  in  this  country  are  allowed  to  have  the  same  pattern, 
and  it  is  not  sold  in  the  open  home  market.  As  there  is  or  may  be  a 
material  difference  in  the  cost  of  each  pattern,  specific  duties  will  be 
unequal.  The  cost  is  sometimes  enhanced  more  than  50  cents  per  yard 
by  the  addition  of  silk.  In  other  patterns,  of  nearly  the  same  general 
appearance,  10  cents  would  cover  the  cost  of  the  silk.  A specific  duty 
that  did  not  take  this  into  account  would  probably  throw  all  of  the  manu- 
facture of  the  higher  cost  into  the  hands  of  foreigners.  If  the  present 
duty  on  the  silk  yarns  remains  in  force,  the  effect  on  our  home  mills 
would  be  worse  than  from  any  probable  undervaluation. 

If  desired,  we  would  with  pleasure  submit  samples  of  raw  material, 
or  goods  in  any  stage  of  manufacture  your  Department  may  designate, 
or  give  any  information  in  our  power  that  may  assist  the  Government 
in  arriving  at  a full  understanding  of  the  situation  of  the  business  and 
the  effect  of  the  revenue  laws  upon  its  success.  We  are  willing  to  sub- 
mit for  inspection  all  the  materials  and  operations  employed  in  the  fab- 
rication of  the  goods,  and  the  actual  cost  of  the  same. 

We  trust  in  the  pledges  of  the  party  in  power  “ to  revise  the  tariff  in 
a spirit  of  fairness  to  all  interests  “ in  making  reduction  of  taxes  not 


278 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


to  injure  any  domestic  industries,  but  rather  to  promote  tlieir  healthy 
growth.”  We  are  satisfied  this  can  be  done,  so  far  as  our  special  busi 
ness  is  concerned,  without  detriment  to  either  producers  or  consumers; 
that  “ sufficient  revenue  to  pay  all  the  expenses  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, economically  administered,”  &c.,  “can  be  got  from  taxes  on 
fewer  imported  articles,  bearing  heaviest  on  articles  of  luxury”;  that 
if  the  raw  materials  necessary  for  our  manufactures  are  made  free,  such 
taxes  for  revenue  will  incidentally  give  us  all  the  protection  needed  for 
our  industries,  if  graduated  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  labor. 

Our  labor  will  continue  to  receive  higher  compensation  than  in  any 
other  country.  We  shall  thus  command  a superior  order  of  workmen, 
and  be  able  to  compete  with  other  nations  for  the  business  of  the  world. 
Our  commerce  will  be  revived  by  this  means  more  than  by  any  amount 
of  subsidies,  however  lavish. 

I have  perhaps  trespassed  too  much  upon  the  time  of  your  Depart- 
ment in  so  fully  accepting  your  invitation  to  give  expression  of  our 
views  on  the  general  subject  indicated,  and  I fear  not  in  such  form  and 
manner  as  you  may  have  wished  or  expected. 

My  excuse  must  be  the  deep  interest  I have  been  forced  to'take  in 
the  subject  from  the  position  in  which  I have  been  placed  and  the  de- 
cided conviction  that  a study  of  the  practical  workings  of  the  present 
tariff  has  given  me  that  it  is  opposed  to  the  prosperity  of  our  home 
industries. 

We  only  ask  that  the  subject  may  be  fairly  investigated  and  the  facts 
be  plainly  stated  without  regard  to  theories,  which,  although  plausible 
at  first  sight,  do  not  stand  the  test  of  actual  practice. 

It  is  a misnomer  calling  a measure  that  taxes  our  industries  out  of 
existence  a protective  tariff. 

Trusting  the  action  of  Congress  may  be  such  as  will  be  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  whole  country,  and  believing  that  such  action  will  have 
the  hearty  support  of  the  present  administration, 

I remain,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

CHAS.  M.  BEACH, 
Treasurer  Home  Woolen  Mills  Company. 


Wages  paid. 

Per  day. 

Wages  paid. 

Per  day. 

Foreman  on  repairs 

$3  50  ' 

1 Helpers 

$1  00  to  1 10 

Wood  workman  and  machinist 

$2  50  to  2 75  ! 

Spoolers 

50  to  75 

Painter,  piper  _ _ 

2 00  j 

Boss  dresser  

2 75 

Outside  hands 

1 50  t 

1 Dresser  tenders 

1 75 

Watchmen 

1 62$  to  1 75 

Winders  (boys  and  girls) 

65  to  80 

Firemen  and  en'nneer 

2 00  I 

Spoolers  (boys  and  girls) 

50  to  60 

Boss  sorter 

3 00  ; 

Boss  weaver 

3 75 

Sorters  ahnnt  

1 75 

Fixers .... 

2 25 

Boss  dyer 

5 00 

Percher 

1 75 

Second  hand 

1 50 

Filling  carrier 

1 62* 

Scourers 

1 35  to  1 50  ! 

I Pattern  weavers.  &c 

1 25  to  1 50* 

Dye-house  hands - 

1 12$  to  1 25  i 

1 Weavers  

1 35  to  1 57 

Boss  carder 

4 25 

Boss  burler 

2 50 

Secoud  hand  . . 

2 25  1 

Sewers-in  (women) 

' 1 10  to  1 50 

Cleaner 

1 25 

Burlers  (giris) 

70  to  80 

Pickermen 

1 00  to  1 50 

Boss  fuller  and  gigger 

3 00 

Boys  

50  to  1 00 

; Second  hand  

1 62$ 

Boss  spinner 

3 50  : 

Gig  hands,  washer,  &c  

1 12$  to  1 37$ 

Second  hand 

1 50 

Boss  finisher 

4 00 

Boss  mnle-spinner _ 

2 50 

1 Shearmen 

1 40  to  2 50 

Twister  girls 

80  ! 

Pressman 

1 50 

Hand-jack  spinners 

1 40  to  1 50 

S Dryer  and  brush  hands 

90  to  1 12$ 

Mule-spinners 

1 45  to  1 62 J 

1 Speckers 

80  to  85 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


279 


At  the  London  Docks  wool-floor. 


FROM  SYDNEY. 


Grease,  first  combing,  superior,  extra  skirted,  light  in  grease 

Grease,  first  combing 

Do 

Do 

Grease,  second  combing 

Do 

Grease,  clothing 

Grease 

Grease,  black,  two  sorts 

Grease,  pieces 

Grease,  bellies 

Grease,  super  combing 

Do 

Do 

Grease 

Grease,  combing 

Grease,  fine  cross-bred 

Grease,  combing 

Do 

Do 

Grease,  pieces  — 

Grease,  fine  x-bred 

Grease,  combing 

Do 

Do 

Scoured  second  pieces 

Scoured  third  pieces 

Grease,  combing 

Grease 

Grease,  pieces  and  bellies 

Scoured  pieces,  49  locks 

Scoured  locks 

Grease,  combing 

Gi  ease,  pieces 

Grease,  locks 

Grease 

Grease,  pieces 

Grease,  locks 

Grease,  x-bred 

Grease,  x-bred,  pieces 

Grease,  combing 

Grease. 

Scoured  pieces 

Scoured  bellies,  .002,  part  locks 

Grease,  extra  fine  X com 

Grease 

Grease,  damaged 

Grease,  com.  W,  fine  x-bred 

Grease,  com.  E,  fine  x-bred 

Do 

Grease,  com.  E,  x-bred,  196,  two  sorts 

Grease 

Grease,  black 

Grease,  damaged 

Scoured  pieces,  x-bred 

Scoured  bellies,  x-bred,  025,  two  sorts 

Scoured,  locks,  x-bred 

Scoured  pieces,  4,  two  sorts 

Scoured  bellies 

Scoured  locks 

Grease 

Scoured  pieces,  61,  78,  two  sorts 

Scoured  bellies 

Scoured  locks 

Scoured  screenings 

Grease,  combing 

Grease,  194,  part  combing 

Grease,  damaged 

Grease,  combing 

Grease,  combing,  H 

Grease,  combing 

Grease,  combing,  damaged 

Scoured  pieces,  x-bred 

Scoured  bellies,  x-bred  

Scoured  locks,  x-bred,  No.  063,  two  sorts 

Combing 

First  x-bred,  two  sorts 

Second  x-bred  


Quantity. 

Price. 

Percentage 
of  duty. 

Bales. 

s.  d. 

Per  cent. 

22 

0 Hi 

43 

42 

10i 

47 

45 

101 

47 

2 

9 

54.8 

7 

10 

49.3 

19 

9§ 

51.9 

6 

»i 

51.9 

3 

9 

54.8 

1 

8 

61. 625 

17 

7 

70.  44 

12 

5 i 

90 

12 

51.9 

45 

9 

54.8 

4] 

9 

54.8 

4 

8 

61.  625 

20 

8 

61.  625 

1 

9| 

51.9 

15 

0 9 

54.8. 

51 

0 8i 

58 

13 

0 8i 

58 

1 

0 5i 

90 

3 

0 8i 

58 

5 

0 9 

54.8 

16 

0 8§ 

58 

4 

0 8 

61.  625 

9 

0 10i 

140 

1 

0 9i 

155.  875 

17 

0 9i 

51.9 

14 

0 9 

54.8 

7 

0 5| 

90 

3 

1 n 

109.6 

4 

0 10i 

140 

22 

0 8i 

58 

4 

0 4i 

109.6 

1 

0 2\ 

197 

25 

0 6i 

75. 1 

6 

0 4l 

109.6 

3 

0 3 

164.4 

2 

0 6£ 

75.  1 

1 

0 4 

123 

8 

0 8i 

58 

1 

0 8 

61.  625 

4 

1 2J 

102 

2 

0 101 

140 

21 

0 9£ 

51.9 

3 

0 8 

61.  625 

1 

0 8 

61.625 

3 

0 8i 

58 

50 

0 9 

54.8 

45 

0 8i 

58 

3 

0 7i 

65.  75 

16 

0 8 

61.  625 

1 

0 6* 

75.1 

3 

0 8 

61.  625 

30 

1 tt 

109.  6 

8 

0 10J 

140 

4 

0 9 

164.4 

23 

1 

102 

5 

1 1 

113.  8 

3 

0 9 

164.4 

27 

0 6 

82 

24 

1 2 

105.  666 

6 

1 0 

123 

5 

0 10 

147.5 

1 

0 8 

184.9 

36 

0 6£ 

75.1 

8 

0 5| 

90 

1 

0 51 

90 

2 

0 51 

90 

18 

0 8 

61.  625 

25 

0 7| 

65.  75 

1 

0 6i 

75.1 

13 

0 ll| 

128.  625 

4 

0 10 

147.5 

5 

0 8J 

174 

15 

1 3 

65.7 

1 

0 10 

98.5 

1 

0 10* 

94 

280  REPORT  OP  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


At  the  London  Doclcs  wool-floor — Continued. 

FROM  SYDNEY— Continued. 


Combing 

Grease 

Grease,  Hoggett’s 

Grease,  No.  12,  two  sorts 

Grease,  combing 

Scoured,  combing 

Grease,  mixed 

Mixed  

Grease,  combing,  No.  1,  part  black 

Scoured  

Grease,  combing 

Grease,  combing,  E 

Grease,  first  combing 

Scoured  black 

Scoured  black,  two  sorts 

Grease  


FROM  MELBOURNE. 


Quantity. 

Price. 

Percentage 
of  duty. 

Bales. 

8.  d. 

Per  cent. 

2 

1 0 

82.  2 

2 

0 7fc 

C5.  75 

9 

0 7 

70.  44 

8 

0 7 

70.  44 

6 

0 64 

75.1 

1 

0 94 

164 

1 

0 5 

98.6 

1 

0 4 

246.6 

6 

0 64 

75. 1 

1 

0 8 

184.9 

14 

0 7 

70.44 

28 

0 64 

75.1 

9 

0 8§ 

58 

2 

1 2 

105.  666 

1 

1 04 

118 

2 

0 104 

47 

Grease,  71,  two  sorts 

Scoured,  49,  two  sorts 

Scoured  pieces 

Scoured  pieces 

Grease,  super  combing 

38 

6 

4 

1 

1 

0 64 
1 2 
0 104 
0 8 
0 94 

75.1 
105.  666 
140 
184.9 
51.9 

FROM  NEW  ZEALAND. 

Grease,  combing 

30 

0 9 

54.8 

Grease,  combing 

30 

0 84 

58 

FROM  ADELAIDE. 


Scoured  black 

Do 

Scoured  locks 

Scoured  first  lambs’ 

Do 

Do  

Scoured,  second  x-bred 

Scoured,  first  x-bred  lambs’ 

Scoured,  first 

Scoured,  second 

Scoured  black,  two  sorts 

Scoured  locks 

Scoured,  first  x-bred 

Scoured,  second  x-bred 

Grease,  lambs’  x-bred 

Grease,  lambs’,  two  sorts 

Grease,  lambs’  tallow,  damaged 

Grease,  lambs’ 

Do 

Grease,  lambs’  tallow,  damagefl 

Grease,  lambs’ 

Grease,  lambs 

Grease,  lambs,  super 

Scoured,  first  combing 

Do  

Scoured,  first  combing,  and  black 

Scoured,  second  combing 

Scoured,  second  combing,  32,  two  sorts. 

Scoured,  first  pieces 

Scorn  ed,  first  pieces,  x-bred 

Scoured,  first  locks 

Scoured,  second  locks 

Scoured,  first  lambs,  13,  two  sorts 

Scoured,  two  sorts 

Gr  ease,  super  combing 

Grease,  super  combing,  damaged 

Grease,  super  combing 

Grease,  x-bred  lambs 

Grease,  combing ”, 

Scoured  

Do 

Scoured,  damaged 


2 

o 114 

128.  625 

10 

0 84 

174 

4 

0 8 

184.9 

6 

1 0 

123 

20 

1 0 

123 

11 

0 104 

140 

3 

0 7 

211 

4 

0 10 

147.5 

2 

1 04 

118 

2 

0 94 

164 

1 

0 84 

174 

1 

0 54 

269 

2 

1 0 

123 

1 

0 84 

174 

3 

0 6 

82 

1 

0 5 

98.6 

1 

0 5 

98.6 

1 

0 54 

90 

l 

0 54 

90 

1 

0 5.V 

90 

1 

0 6 

82 

1 

0 7 

70.  44 

3 

0 64 

75.1 

9 

1 44 

90 

2 

1 1 

113.8 

1 

0 94 

164 

4 

0 10 

147.  50 

2 

o 84 

174 

2 

0 84 

174 

1 

0 84  ; 

174 

6 ! 

0 84  | 

174 

1 , 

0 64 

227.6 

2 

0 8* 

174 

1 

0 6 

246.  5_ 

6 

o 74 

65.  75 

1 

0 7 

70.  44 

3 

0 8.4 

58 

1 

o 6.4 

75.1 

12 

0 84 

58 

22 

0 9 

164.4 

5 

0 7 

211 

1 

0 64 

227.6 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


281 


At  the  London  Docks  wool-floor — Continued. 


FROM  ADELAIDE— Continued. 


Scoured,  x-bred,  3,  two  sorts 

Grease,  super  combing 

Grease,  lambs 

Grease,  combing 

Do 

Grease,  X and  black 

Grease 

Grease,  lambs,  two  sorts 

Grease,  combing  

Grease,  lambs  fine  x-bred 

Grease.  S. 

Grease,  combing  . 

Grease,  combing 

Grease 

Grease,  6,  two  sorts 

Grease,  X lambs 

Grease,  combing 

Grease,  lambs,  two  sorts 

Grease,  super  combing 

Grease,  second 

Grease,  x-bred,  2 parts  merino 

Grease,  x-bred 

Grease,  super  combing 

Grease,  lambs,  two  sorts 

Grease,  super  combing,  x-bred,  4 parts  merino 

Grease 

Grease,  super  combing 

Grease,  bellies  and  pieces 

Grease,  lambs  and  pieces 

Grease,  combing,  x-bred  

Grease,  lambs  

Grease,  two  sorts 

Grease,  combing 

Scoui  ed,  second 

Scoured  pieces 

Scoured  locks 

Scoured,  first  lambs 

Scoured,  second  lambs 

Scoui  ( .!,  first  pieces 

Scoim  d.  second  pieces 

Scoured,  first  locks 

Scoured,  second  locks 

Grease,  combing 

Grease 

Grease,  lambs  

Do 

Do 

Grease,  super  x-bred 

Do 

Grease,  black  and  x-bred 

Grease,  two  sorts  x-bred 

Grease,  Lincoln 

Grease,  lambs  x-bred 

Grease,  lambs  x-bred,  two  sorts 

Grease,  lambs  x-bred 

Scoured,  mixed 

Scoured,  first  combing 

Scoured,  fleece 

Greasd,  lambs 

Scoured,  first,  second,  and  third 

Scoured,  fleece  and  locks 

Scoured,  first  combing 

Do 

Do 

Scoured,  second  combing - 

Scoured,  lambs,  two  sorts 

Scoured,  x-bred,  two  sorts 

Grease 

Do 

Do 

Scoured  super  combing 

Scoured,  two  sorts 

Scoured  

Scoured,  R 

Scoured  locks 

Grease,  combing,  E 

Grease,  SF 


Quantity. 

Price. 

Percentage 
of  duty. 

Bales. 

&. 

d. 

Per  cent. 

2 

0 

4 

227.  C 

10 

0 

8! 

58 

5 

0 

6 

82 

7 

0 

7* 

65.  75 

8 

0 

7 

70.  44 

1 

0 

4 

75.  1 

3 

0 

7 

70.  50 

1 

0 

5 h 

90 

2 

0 

8 

61.625 

1 

0 

6 h 

75.1 

5 

0 

6 

82 

2 

0 

7* 

65. 75 

9 

0 

61 

75.1 

5 

0 

n 

63.  75 

9 

0 

7 

70.  5 

1 

0 

6* 

75. 1 

9 

0 

8 

61.  625 

1 

0 

4 

75.  1 

2 

0 

8 

61.625 

2 

0 

7 

70.5 

2 

0 

8 h 

58 

2 

0 

7a 

65.  75 

2 

0 

9 

54.8 

1 

0 

4 

75.1 

4 

0 

9| 

51.9 

10 

0 

6 

82 

3 

0 

9 

54.8 

4 

0 

4h 

109.6 

1 

0 

4 

141 

3 

0 

n 

65.75 

1 

0 

4 

75.1 

1 

0 

n 

65.  75 

9 

0 

10 

49.3 

1 

0 

14 

128.  625 

4 

0 

9 

164.4 

1 

0 

269 

1 

1 

l 

113.8 

1 

0 

9! 

164 

3 

0 

10 

147.5 

1 

0 

8 

184.9 

3 

0 

7 

211 

4 

0 

6 

246.5 

3 

0 

8 

61.625 

6 

0 

5 h 

90 

4 

0 

7 

70.5 

4 

0 

5 h 

90 

1 

0 

5| 

90 

3 

0 

7 

70.5 

2 

0 

7* 

65.  75 

1 

0 

6 

82 

1 

0 

4 

75.1 

1 

0 

7 

70.5 

2 

0 

6 

82 

1 

0 

5 

98.6 

1 

0 

4h 

109.6 

2 

0 

8 

184.9 

1 

1 

0£ 

118 

2 

0 

10 

147.5 

1 

0 

6 

82 

1 

0 

7i 

197.4 

1 

0 

8 

184.9 

4 

1 

n 

95.5 

2 

0 

14 

128.  625 

1 

1 

2£ 

102 

2 

0 

lo! 

140 

1 

0 

10 

1-17.  5 

1 

0 

10 

147.5 

76 

0 

5k 

90 

25 

0 

•4 

90 

27 

0 

4 

90 

4 

1 

4 

84.  5 

2 

1 

5 

87 

1 

1 

4 

90 

2 

1 

2* 

102 

1 

0 

11 

134  5 

1 

0 

io| 

140 

34 

0 

9 

54.8 

1 

0 

9 

54.8 

282  REPORT  OE  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY, 


At  the  London  Docks  wool-floor — Continued. 

PROM  ADELAIDE — Continued. 


Grease,  part  black. . - 

Grease,  pieces  . . 

Grease,  pieces,  belly 

Grease 

Grease,  locks  and  pieces,  ex.  “Orontes” 

Grease,  first  combing 

Do 

Grease,  boggetts . 

Grease,  boggetts,  damaged 

Do 

Grease,  lambs 

Grease,  H 

Do 

Do 

Grease,  boggetts 

Grease,  ewes 

Grease,  first  lambs 

Scoured  fleece 

Scoured  first  pieces 

Scoured  second  pieces 

Scoured  belly  pieces 

Scoured  belly  pieees,  damaged 

Scoured  third  pieces 

Scoured  S 

Scoured  locks,  damaged 

Scoured  skin  

Scoured  skin,  two  sorts 

Scoured  lambs 

Scoured  lambs,  second 

Grease,  boggetts 

Grease,  hoggetts,  damaged 

Grease,  ewes,  77,  two  sorts 

Scoured  pieces 

Scoured  pieces  and  locks 

Combing 

Bellies  and  pieces 

Locks  and  pieces 

Grease,  lambs 

Grease 

Scoured  locks 

Grease,  combing,  boggetts 

Grease,  combing,  ewes 

Grease,  combing,  W 

Grease 

Grease,  damaged 

Grease,  combing,  hoggetts 

Grease, first  combing 

Grease,  second  combing 

Grease,  damaged  combing 

Grease,  first  clothing 

Grease,  second  clothing,  172,  pt.  1st 

Grease,  damaged 

Grease 

Grease,  x-bred 

Grease,  x-bred,  damaged 

Grease,  first  combing 

Grease 

Do 

Grease,  damaged 

Grease,  two  sorts 

Grease,  x-bred 

Grease,  x-bred,  two  sorts 

Grease,  combing 

Do 

Grease,  combing,  damaged 

Grease,  combing,  stud 

Grease,  combing,  stud,  damaged 

Black 

Grease  combing 

Do 

Grease,  broken 

Grease,  lambs 

Grease,  hoggetts 

Grease 

Scoured  A fleece 

Do 

Scoured  B fleece 


Quantity. 

Price. 

Percentage 
of  duty. 

Bales. 

s.  d. 

Percent. 

1 

0 9 

54.8 

19 

0 8 

61.  625 

7 

0 5£ 

90 

12 

0 8 

61.  625 

1 

0 4 

123 

12 

0 10 

49.3 

9 

0 9* 

51.9 

31 

0 9£ 

51.9 

1 

0 9 

54.8 

32 

0 9 

54.8 

1 

0 7£ 

65.  75 

12 

0 9 

54.3 

13 

0 Si 

58 

27 

0 8i 

58 

14 

o 10| 

47 

51 

0 10 

49.3 

11 

0 10! 

47 

4 

1 5! 

84.  50 

6 

l 4! 

90 

5 

1 3! 

95.50 

4 

i H 

109.6 

1 

l 0! 

118 

2 

o 10! 

HO 

2 

0 11 

134.  50 

1 

0 8! 

174 

1 

o 10! 

140 

1 

o li! 

128.  625 

5 

1 3 

98.6 

1 

1 3 

98.  6 

5 

0 9! 

51.9 

1 

0 8! 

58 

23 

0 8! 

58 

2 

0 11 

134.  5 

4 

0 9! 

155.  875 

10 

1 4 

61.625 

1 

0 9 

109.6 

1 

0 6! 

151.7 

15 

0 7! 

65.  75 

24 

0 9 

54.8 

1 

0 9! 

155.  875 

18 

0 10 

49.3 

64 

0 9!  i 

51.9 

19 

0 9! 

51.9 

2 

0 8! 

58 

7 

0 8! 

58 

13 

0 10 

49.3 

13 

o io  ! 

49.3 

14 

0 9! 

51.9 

6 

0 9 

54.8 

13 

0 9! 

51.9 

24 

0 9 

54.8 

3 

0 9 

54.8 

2 

0 7!  ! 

65.  75 

3 

0 8!  ! 

58 

1 

0 8’ 

58 

17 

0 9 

54.8 

10 

0 9 

54.8 

6 

0 8! 

58 

4 

0 9‘ 

54.8 

3 

0 7! 

65.  75 

1 

0 8 

61.  625 

1 

0 8! 

58 

4 

0 9' 

54.8 

4 

0 8!  1 

58 

3 

0 8!  1 

58 

8 

0 9 

54.8 

1 

0 9J  1 

51.9 

4 1 

0 10! 

94 

36 

0 9! 

51  9 

36 

0 9 

54.8 

49 

0 9! 

51.9 

2 

0 6! 

75 

7 

0 7! 

65.  75 

6 

0 9 

54.8 

12 

0 9 

54.8 

9 

1 6 

82.  20 

3 

1 6 

82. 20 

7 

1 4| 

90 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


283 


At  the  London  Docks  wool  floor — Continued. 


Quantity. 

Price. 

Percentage 
of  duty. 

Bales. 

13 

8. 

1 

d. 

2 

Per  cent. 
105.  666 

11 

1 

5 

87 

2 

1 

1 

113.8 

10 

0 U| 
0 10i 

128.  625 

5 

140 

1 

0 

9J 

8 

155.7 

9 

0 

61.625 

1 

0 

11 

90 

2 

0 

6| 

8 

75. 1 

17 

0 

61.625 

40 

0 

n 

7 

65.  75 

Do 

39 

0 

70.  44 

4 

0 

7 

70.  44 

1 

0 

6| 

3 

75.1 

7 

1 

98.6 

0 11 

134.  5 

Scoured  pieces  . .... ................... 

8 

0 

94 

H 

9 

164 

Scoured,  two  sorts 

1 

1 

• 109.6 

Grease,  combing  

6 

0 

54.8 

Do 

13 

0 

8| 

2* 

8 

58 

Do 

15 

1 

68 

Grease 

11 

0 

61.625 

Grease,  combing 

51 

0 

H 

9| 

4 

58 

Grease,  fine  x-bred 

8 

0 

51.9 

Grease,  pieces 

9 

0 

123 

Grease,  combing 

23 

0 

84 

9 

58 

Grease,  fine  x-bred 

9 

0 

54.  8 

Grease,  bellies 

3 

0 

4| 

8J 

2| 

2 

109.6 

Grease,  combing 

25 

0 

58 

Do 

23 

1 

68 

Do 

20 

1 

70.  50 

Clippings 

2 

0 

n 

8 

131.  50 

Grease,  combing 

14 

0 

61.  625 

Grease,  x-bred,  fine 

9 

0 

84 

7| 

6 

58 

Grease,  combing 

4 

0 

65. 75 

Grease 

17 

0 

82 

Do : 

11 

1 

1 

65.  75 

Grease,  combing 

19 

0 

7 

70.  50 

Grease,  combing,  part  x-bred 

1 

0 

8 

61.  625 

Grease,  combing 

14 

0 

8 

61.  625 

Do 

40 

0 

8 

61.  625 

Do 

43 

0 

7| 

65.75 

Grease . ... 

15 

0 

5| 

• 90 

Scoured  locks 

4 

0 

9 

164.4 

Grease  

1 

0 

5! 

90 

FROM  QUEENSLAND. 


Grease,  1st  combing,  E 

Grease,  1st  combing,  H 

Grease,  1st  combing,  W 

Grease,  first  and  second  rams 

Grease,  first  pieces 

Grease,  second  pieces,  No.  95,  2 sorts 

Grease,  second  pieces  and  B 

Grease,  bellies 

Scoured  pieces,  D 

Scoured  locks 

Scoared  clips ' 


. 

27 

0 9| 

51.9 

g 

0 9 

54.8 

5 

0 9 

54.8 

4 

0 9 

54.8 

7 

0 7 

70.5 

2 

0 6| 

75.1 

1 

0 5 

98.6 

3 

0 5J 

90 

2 

0 11 

134.5 

3 

0 9i 

155.7 

1 

0 6* 

227.6 

FROM  SYDNEY. 


Grease,  belly  pieces 

Grease,  belly  pieces,  damaged 

Grease,  belly  pieces  . 

Grease,  belly  pieces,  damaged, 

Grease,  combing 

Grease,  two  sorts 

Grease,  belly  pieces 

Grease,  combing 

Grease,  black 

Grease,  x-bred 


18 

1 

7 

1 

16 

3 
2 

4 
1 
1 


0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


5| 

90 

5 

98.6 

5 

98.6 

34 

141 

84 

58 

8 

61.  625 

34 

141 

9 

54.8 

94 

51.9 

9 

54.8 

284  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


At  the  London  Docks  wool  floor— Continued. 

FROM  SYDNEY— Continued. 


Quantity. 

Price. 

Percentage 
of  duty. 

Bales. 

6 

8.  d. 
0 84 
0 7\ 
0 8~ 

Per  cent. 
58 

65.  75 
61.  625 

3 

Do 

Do  

3 

0 74 
0 74 
0 84 

65.75 

Grease,  combing,  damaged 

1 

65.  75 

Do 

3 

58 

Do 

2 

0 9 

54.  8 

Grease,  black 

1 

0 10 

49.  3 

Grease,  combing 

35 

0 9 

54.  8 

Grease,  combing,  damaged 

3 

0 8J 

58 

Grease,  combing . 

3 

0 84 
0 8 

58 

Grease,  combing,  damaged 

3 

61.  625 

Scoured 

12 

1 5 

87 

Do 

2 

0 10 

147.5 

Mixed •_ 

1 

0 6 

104.  4 

Scoured,  two  pieces  __  

34 

1 li 

0 74 

1 2 

109.  6 

Do 

11 

197.4 

Scoured,  first 

3 

105.  666 

Scoured,  pieces 

3 

0 114 

1 04 
1 2 

134.  5 

Scoured,  first,  dead  wool 

7 

] 18 

Do 

1 

105.  666 

Scoured,  second,  dead  wool 

Scoured,  third,  dead  wool 

10 

3 

o 104 
0 10 

140 
147.  5 

Scoured,  two  sorts 

Mixed 

1 

] 

0 9 
0 10 

164.4 

98.5 

FROM  QUEENSLAND. 


Scoured  first,  combing 

15 

1 44 
1 3 

90 

Scoured,  first  clotbing,  412,  part  combing 

6 

98.  6 

Scoured,  two  sorts 

1 

l 14 

0 114 

1 3 

109.  6 

Scoured,  skin . 

2 

128.  625 

Scoured,  pieces 

11 

98.  6 

Do 

23 

1 3 

98,  G 
98.  6 

Scoured,  belly  pieces 

5 

1 3 

Do 

5 

l 14 
0 11 

109.  6 

Scoured,  second  pieces _ 

4 

134.  5 

Scoured,  second  and  third  skin 

3 

0 10 

147.5  • 

Scoured,  two  sorts 

1 

0 94 
0 7 

155.  7 

Scoured,  S pieces 

2 

211 

Scoured,  screenings _ _ _ 

1 

0 8 

184.  9 

Scoured,  X combing  and  pieces 

2 

0 10 

147.  5 

Scoured,  two  sorts 

1 

0 10  \ 

140 

Scoured,  locks 

l 

o 74 
0 8 

197.4 

Grease,  first  combing 

32 

61.  625 

Do 

30 

0 8 

61.  625 

Grease,  first  clothing 

48 

0 7 

70.  5 

Do ! 

Grease,  second  clothing 1 

Do 

14 

23 

4 

0 7 
0 6* 
0 64 

70.5 
75. 1 
75.1 

FROM  MELBOURNE. 


Grease,  broken 

16 

0 7* 

65.  75 

Scoured,  super  black 

1 

1 2' 

105.  666 

FROM  NEW  ZEALAND. 


Grease,  x-hved  lambs  

9 

0 84 
o 94 

0 9 

58 

Do 

3 

* 51. 9 

Do 

2 

54.  8 

Grease,  x-bred 

16 

0 8 

61.  625 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


285 


At  the  London  Docks  wool-Jloor — Continued. 

FROM  ADELAIDE. 


Quantity. 


Price. 


Percentage 
of  duty. 


Grease 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do  

Do  

Grease,  damaged 

Grease,  belly  pieces 

Grease,  lambs 

Grease,  B,  lambs 

Grease,  lambs,  and  black  fleece 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Grease 

Grease,  damaged 

Grease,  broken 

Grease,  lambs .• 

Grease,  lambs,  damaged 


Bales. 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

59 

8 

25 

1 

28 

34 

17 

1 

50 

50 

50 

46 

8 

1 

2 

14 

1 


. d. 

Per  cent. 

0 7* 

65.  75 

0 8 

61.  625 

0 7* 

65.  75 

0 7* 

65.  75 

0 74 

65.  75 

o 74 

65.  75 

o 74 

65. 75 

0 7 

70.5 

0 7 

70.5 

0 6 

82 

0 5 

98.6 

0 6 

82 

0 5 

98.6 

0 6 

82 

0 7* 

65.  75 

0 7 

70.5 

0 7 

70.5 

0 7 

70.5 

0 64 

75. 1 

0 6 

82 

o 44 

109.  6 

0 54 

90 

0 5 

98.6 

FROM  SYDNEY. 


Grease,  first  combing  , 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Grease,  first  pieces  — 

Grease,  black 

Grease,  first,  lambs — 
Grease,  second,  lambs 


65 

o 94 

51.9 

60 

0 9 

54.8 

44 

0 9 

54.8 

40 

0 9 

54.8 

6 

0 7 

70.5 

2 

0 9 

54.8 

22 

o 74 

65.  75 

30 

0 7 

70.5 

FROM  QUEENSLAND. 


Scoured  skin 


5 j 13* 


95.5 


FROM  MELBOURNE. 


Scoured,  super  combing 

Scoured,  first  combing 

Scoured,  combing 

Scoured,  second  combing 

Scoured,  super  combing 

Grease 

Second  lambs 

Grease,  fine  x-bred  pieces 

Gre  se,  U,  fine  x-bred  pieces 

First  combing  

Grease,  combing 

Grease,  first  x-bred,  No.  23,  second 

Combing 

Grease,  first  lambs 

Extra 

Scoured,  super  clothing — <■ 

Scoured,  A,  first  combing,  x-bred 

Scoured,  super  combing 

Do 

Scoured,  first  combing 

Grease,  combing,  fine  x-bred 

Do 

Grease,  x-bred 

Grease,  x-bred,  fine  combing 

Grease,  x-bred,  fine  seven,  two  sorts  

Scoured,  extra  super  combing,  two  bales  Hoggett’s 


30 

1 

84 

72.  20 

27 

1 

81 

72.  20 

20 

1 

84 

72.  20 

16 

1 

64 

80 

23 

1 

84 

72.  20 

25 

0 

9 

54.8 

6 

0 

10 

98.  50 

9 

0 

7-4 

65.  75 

3 

0 

54 

90 

24 

1 

5 

57 

37 

0 

9 

54.8 

6 

0 

64 

75. 1 

8 

1 

2 

70.  50 

10 

0 

9 

54.8 

2 

1 

6 

54.8 

8 

1 

3 

98.6 

4 

1 

7 

77.  875 

18 

1 

84 

72  ?0 

18 

1 

84 

72.  2o 

7 

1 

64 

80 

6 

0 

9 

54.8 

7 

0 

84 

58 

5 

0 

9 

54.8 

6 

0 

9 

54.8 

8 

0 

9 

54.8 

23 

1 

64 

80 

286  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY, 


At  the  London  Docks  wool-floor — Continued. 

FROM  MELBURNE — Continued. 


Quantity. 

Price. 

Percentage 
of  duty. 

Scoured  super  combing ...... .............. 

Bales. 

11 

s.  d. 

1 5i 

Per  cent. 
84.  50 

Scoured,  first  combing 

5- 

1 5“ 

87 

Scoured,  first  J-bred 

1 

0 lli 

1 li 

128.  625 

Scoured 

16 

109.  6 

Srnnrprl  t.hirrl  skirts  ..  _ _ 

19 

0 10£ 
0 Si 

140 

Grease,  first  x-bred ... 

14 

58 

Do 

3 

0 8* 
0 8£ 

58 

Grease,  part  black 

1 

58 

VICTORIA. 

Scoured,  super  snow-white 

15 

1 8 

74 

Scoured 

2 

1 6 

82.  20 

NEW  ZEALAND. 


Scoured,  x-bred 

6 

0 9 

164.4 

Extra  super  clothing.. 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Extra  second  clothing. 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Extra  third  clothing. .. 

Do 

Extra  first  combing... 

Do 

Extra  skirts 

Extra  pieces 

Do''.'.*.'.’*."’!! 

Extra  locks 

Extra  lambs 


QUEENSLAND. 


10  i 

| 

1 8 

74 

10 

1 H 

80 

20  1 

1 6i 

80 

29 

1 7 

77.  875 

12 

1 6 

54.8 

16 

1 5* 

56.  36 

9 

1 5h  ! 

56.  36 

10 

1 5* 

56.  36 

13 

1 54  I 

56.  36 

15  | 

1 H 

56.  36 

6 | 

1 4i  1 

60 

6 1 

1 44 

60 

29 

1 6 

54.8 

20 

1 5J  j 

56.  36 

14 

1 44  j 

60 

15  | 

1 1 

65.  75 

14 

1 04 

78.9 

8 

1 1 

65.  75 

3 

0 9 

1 09.6 

4 

1 7 

52 

FROM  SYDNEY. 


Scoured,  super  combing 

Scoured,  first  combing 

Do 

Scoured,  second  combing,  383,  part  super 

Scoured,  first  pieces 

Do . 

Do 

Scoured,  black 

Scoured,  first  x-bred 

Scoured,  super  combing 

Scoured  first  combing 

Scoured,  third,  281  pt.  fleece 

Scoured,  second  pieces 

Scoured,  locks 

Scoured,  mixed 

Grease 

Do 

Grease,  clothing  E stud 

Grease,  second  clothing  E stud 

Grease,  first  lambs , 

Scoured,  first  pieces 

Do 


87 

87 

92.5 

92.5 

95.5 
98.  6 

98.6 
92.  5 
95.5 
90 

113.8 

161.4 

155.7 

174 

211 

75.1 


54.8 
54.8 
65.  75 
128.  625 
140 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


287 


At  the  London  Docks  ivool-Jloor — Continued. 


PROM  ADELAIDE. 


Quantity. 

Price. 

Percejatage 
of  duty. 

Grease,  super  com,  3 bs 

Bales. 

50 

s.  d. 
0 J0| 

Per  cent. 
47 

Do  

• 47 

0 10 

49.3 

Do  

10 

0 8£ 
0 7 

58 

Grease,  first  pieces 

8 

70.5 

Grease,  second  pieces 

11 

0 5* 

90 

Grease,  belly  pieces 

10 

0 4 & 

109.  6 

Grease,  lambs 

41 

0 

65.  75 

Do  

7 

0 5 

98.6 

12 

0 6 

82 

Grease,  lambs 

2 

0 5i 

90 

Scoured,  first  pieces 

13 

1 11 

109.6 

Scoured,  second  pieces 

3 

0 9 

164.  4 

Scoured,  first  locks 

3 

0 7 

211 

Scoured,  second  locks 

1 

0 51 

269 

Scoured,  first  locks 

18 

0 

197.4 

Scoir  ed,  second  locks 

4 

0 6 

246.  5 

Scorred,  third  locks 

1 

0 4 

370 

49 

0 6 

246.5 

bo  

3 

0 5J 
0 4 

90 

Grease,  pieces ^ 

6 

123 

Grease,  lambs 

4 

0 6 \ 

75.1 

Grease,  super  first  combing  stud 

Grease,  first  combing 

5 

0 101 

47 

15 

0 81 

58 

Do  

7 

0 71 

65.  75 

Grease,  second  combing 

5 

0 8 

61.625 

Grease,  first  clothing.  .. 

11 

0 71 

65.  75 

Grease,  second  clothing 

19 

0 7 

70.  44 

Do 

5 

0 7 

70.  44 

Grease,  first  pieces 

2 

0 71 

65.  75 

Grease,  second  pieces 

24 

0 8 

61.  625 

Do  

6 

0 71 
0 7 

65.  75 

Grease,  first  lambs 

24 

70.  50 

Grease,  second  lambs 

10 

0 5 

98.6 

Grease,  two  sorts 

1 

0 71 

65.  75 

Scoured,  fleece,  part  black 

1 

1 3 

98.6 

Scoured,  mixed 

1 

1 3 

98.6 

Scoured,  pieces  

12 

1 n 

109.6 

Scoured,  belly  pieces 

21 

1 2| 

102 

Scoured,  S pieces 

12 

1 01 

118 

Scoured,  locks 

26 

0 '9 

164.4 

Do  

6 

0 8 

184.  9 

Grease,  first  combing,  stud 

22 

0 91 

51.9 

Grease,  first  combing 

40 

0 8 

61.625 

Do 

38 

0 71 
0 7 

'65.  75 

Do  

23 

70.  50 

Do 

50 

0 7 

70.  50 

Do  

42 

0 7 

70.  50 

Grease,  broken 

19 

0 71 

65.  75 

Grease,  first  lambs 

20 

0 6 

82. 19 

Grease,  second  lambs 

18 

0 41 

109.16 

Scoured,  best 

30 

1 4 

92.  5 

Do 

28 

1 4 

92.5 

Do 

25 

1 4 

92.  5 

Do 

18 

1 4 

92.5 

Do 

21 

1 3 

98. 16 

Do 

11 

1 21 

0 111 

102 

Scoured,  second 

14 

128.  625 

Grease,  combing 

17 

0 7“ 

70.5 

Grease,  pieces 

Grease,  lambs .. 

2 

0 31 

141 

1 

0 61 

75.1 

JACOMB,  SON  & CO., 

61  Moorgate  Street , London. 


July  9, 


288 


REPORT  OP  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[The  Home  Woolen  Mills  Company,  wool  and  woolens.'] 

Hartford,  Conn.,  November  — , 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir:  In  response  to  your  valued  letter  of  the  13th  October,  asking 
for  my  views  as  to  the  rates  of  duty  which  should  be  imposed  upon  such 
goods  as  our  company  produces,  provided  wool  should  be  put  upon  the 
free  list,  &c.,  I respectfully  submit  that  in  my  opinion,  ou  our  fabrics — 

(1)  With  wool,  and  other  articles  of  consumption,  free,  25  per  cent,  ad  va 
lorem,  upon  the  market  values  in  this  country,  would  compensate  for 
the  higher  cost  of  labor,  insurance,  machinery,  and  perhaps  interest 
and  local  taxes. 

To  this  should  be  added  the  enhanced  cost  of  other  materials  con- 
sumed in  the  manufacture  of  the  fabrics,  in  consequence  of  the  duties 
imposed  thereon  by  the  same  act;  such  as  silk  yarns,  soaps,  chemicals, 
oils,  certain  dyes  and  various  articles  known  as  supplies.  For  these  5 
per  cent,  additional,  making  in  all  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  the  home 
valuations,  would  place  the  business  ou  a healthy  basis,  iu  my  opinion. 

In  making  such  a radical  change,  the  date  should  be  fixed  for  it  to 
take  effect,  some  time  ahead,  to  allow  the  business  of  the  country  time 
for  preparation. 

The  duty  on  raw  materials  should  be  removed,  in  part  at  least, 
several  months  before  it  is  taken  off' from  the  manufactured  goods.  The 
woolen  manufacturers  are  obliged  to  purchase  their  raw  materials,  for 
fine  fancy  cassimeres  and  cloths  iu  particular,  six  to  twelve  months  be- 
fore they  can  realize  for  the  proceeds  of  thein fabrics.  Most  of  the  manu- 
facturers have  probably  purchased,  some  time  since,  the  whole  of  the 
wool  for  the  spring  goods  of  1886,  and  are  now  making  patterns  and 
estimating  the  cost  for  those  of  the  autumn. 

Duties  on  partially  manufactured  articles  should  be  somewhat  in  pro 
portion  to. the  labor  expended  upon  the  raw  materials.  Thus  with  wool 
free,  a duty  on  carded  or  combed  wool,  u tops,”  of  10  per  cent,  would  prob- 
ably be  ample  for  building  up  the  business  of  combing  ; and  20  per  cent, 
on  yarns  afford  all  the  protection  that  would  be  necessary  for  the  busi- 
ness of  wool  and  worsted  spiuning.  For  the  manufacture  of  fine  woolen 
fabrics  there  is  three  times  or  more  labor  required  than  for  making  the 
yarns.  The  risk  of  damage  and  loss  on  the  cloth,  iu  many  ways,  is  also 
many  fold  greater,  and  it  takes  much  longer  to  turn  the  capital.  There- 
fore a duty  of  30  per  cent,  on  the  woven  fabrics  is  not  more  than  an 
equivalent  for  20  per  cent,  on  the  yarns.  The  above  rates  are  all  based 
upon  home  valuations.  It  is  my  firm  belief  that  these  rates  could  be  re- 
duced after  a year  or  two  years’  operation,  without  detriment  to  the 
wool  or  woolen  interests  of  the  country,  if  they  should  be  considered 
at  all  burdensome  to  the  consumers  and  not  required  for  revenue.  In 
fact,  such  an  adjustment  of  duties  would  greatly  increase  the  consump- 
tion of  wool  and  woolen  goods  in  this  country;  and  probably  lead  to 
considerable  export  trade  in  both.  If  the  imports  of  some  qualities 
and  kinds  of  woolen  manufactures  should  be  increased  in  consequence 
of  the  lower  duties,  the  exports  of  others  which  could  be  made  here 
to  advantage  would  probably  fully  compensate,  and  the  free  inter- 
change of  products  would  be  a mutual  benefit. 

(2)  Your  second  request  for  an  opinion  as  to  “ the  rates  of  duty  which 
should  be  levied  upon  such  articles,  in  case  wool  shall  continue  subject 
to  the  rates  of  duty  now  imposed,”  is  not  so  easily  answered  to  my  own 
satisfaction. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


289 


A fair  adjustment  of  simple  rates  upon  fabrics  is  rendered  impossible 
by  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  specific  rates,  and  the  restrictions  upon 
importations  of  the  raw  materials.  -These  involve  the  necessity  of  com- 
pound duties,  especially  if  based  upon  foreign  invoice  values,  in  fact, 
the  existing  complicated  system,  or  some  other  nearly  as  complicated. 
Even  then  this  can  hardly  be  made  to  bear  fairly  upon  all  qualities  of 
fabrics,  starting  upon  such  a false  basis. 

If  the  present  duties  remain  on  yarns,  at  least  10  cents  per  pound  and 
10  per  cent,  ad  valorem  should  be  added  to  cloth  costing  above  $1  per 
pound;  making  the  rates  45  cents  per  pound  and  50  percent,  ad  valorem  on 
the  foreign  valuations,  or  the  same  specific  duty,  and  30  per  cent,  on  the 
home,  duty  paid,  valuation,  to  give  fine  cloths  an  average  protection. 

In  case  a duty  altogether  specific  should  be  considered  advisable,  the 
most  equitable,  in  my  opinion,  would  be  that  based  upon  the  number 
of  picks  in  the  square  inch.  In  this  opinion  I have  been  sustained  by 
such  manufacturers  as  I have  so  far  found  willing  to  give  the  matter 
due  consideration.  I believe  it  to  be  at  least  a general  rule  that  the 
expense  of  manufacturing  woolen  goods,  in  most  of  the  operations,  is 
very  nearly  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  picks,  although  other  items 
enter  into  the  question  of  cost,  as  the  more  or  less  expensive  dyes  and 
the  quantity  of  silk  used ; the  difference  in  these  items  alone  being 
frequently  more  than  50  cents  per  pound  for  fabrics  otherwise  of  the 
same  quality. 

It  would  not,  however,  be  far  from  a fair  adjustment  of  the  duties,  in 
making  them  specific,  to  add  to  the  rate  per  pound  (either  of  35  cents, 
as  it  is  now,  or  45  cents,  which  is  nearer  to  an  offset  for  the  duty  on 
fine  raw  wools)  J cent  per  pound  for  each  pick  per  square  inch,  count- 
ing both  warp  and  filling — this  addition  to  be  in  lieu  of  the  present  ad 
valorem.  In  counting  the  picks  the  silk  threads  should  be  included, 
and  those  composed  of  two  threads  should  count  as  one  and  one-fifth 
picks  each,  and  those  composed  of  more  than  two  threads  as  one  and 
three- tenths  each. 

The  advantages  of  this  method  over  that  based  upon  ad  valorem 
rates  on  foreign  invoice  values  are  freedom  from  temptation  to  under- 
value and  absolute  exactness  without  depending  upon  the  opinions  of 
appraisers  or  experts.  These  should  fully  compensate  for  any  extra 
trouble  there  might  be  in  the  appraisal. 

Herewith  I hand  schedules,  as  requested,  made  upon  the  basis  of  the 
opinions  above  expressed.  I believe  them  to  be  as  fairly  adjusted,  to 
meet  all  classes  interested,  as  it  is  practicable  to  make  them,  having  in 
view  the  giving  to  our  home  industries  an  equal  chance  in  competition 
with  foreign  manufacturers  in  our  own  markets. 

Schedule  A I believe  to  be  for  the  best  interests  of  the  whole  coun- 
try, including  wool-growers,  manufacturers,  and  consumers. 

Schedule  B is  the  present  high  u protective  ” tariff;  corrected  to  some 
extent,  so  far  as  it  discriminates  against  the  home  manufacturer  of  fine 
goods  and  in  favor  of  foreign  fabrics,  otherwise  leaving  all  the  objec- 
tionable features  in  force. 

Schedule  O made  upon  the  same  basis  of  protection  as  B,  but  sub- 
stituting duties  purely  specific,  with  exception  of  yarns,  which  it  is  im- 
possible to  classify  without  having  regard  to  values. 

Schedule  D,  still  starting  upon  the  present  basis  of  10  cents  per  pound 
on  unwashed  wools,  is  only  a fair  adjustment  of  material  in  other  con- 
ditions and  the  manufactures  in  the  various  stages,  adopting  home  val- 
uations. 

S.  Ex.  72—19 


290  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


I a in  fully  aware  that  there  are  many  manufacturers  who,  for  various 
reasons,  will  not  favor  the  views  herein  expressed ; but  trusting  they  may 
be  deemed  worthy  of  consideration, 

I remain,  very  respectfully, 

CHAS.  M.  BEACH. 


A. — Schedule  for  duties  on  manufactures  of  wool  provided  the  raw  material  should  be  duty  free. 


ON  VALUATIONS  AT  THE  PORT  OF  ENTRY,  DUTY  PAID. 

Per  cent. 

Wool  carded  or  combed 10 

Wool  waste,  shoddy,  &c. , and  noils SO 

Woolen  and  worsted  yarns 20 

Woolen  cloths  and  felts,  and  all  other  manufactures  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of 

wool 30 

Yarns  of  silk  and  wool,  and  silk  yarns  suitable  only  for  weaving 20 

Woolen  clothing  of  all  kinds,  or  partly  manufactured 40 


All  the  above  to  be  assessed  upon  the  market  values  at  the  port  of  entry,  at  the 
time  the  goods  are  declared. 

If  the  principle  of  this  schedule  should  be  adopted,  any  duty  laid  upon  importa- 
tions of  wool  should  be  added  to  the  rates  as  above,  for  the  other  articles. 

Ad  valorem  rates  are  the  only  equitable  tax  upon  an  article  so  variable  in  value  as 
wool;  and  there  is  no  important  article  of  merchandise  the  true  value  of  which  can 
be  so  readily  and  so  fairly  estimated,  with  perhaps  the  exception  of  cotton. 


B.  — Schedule  for  duties  on  woven  fabrics  of  worsted  or  wool,  provided  the  present  rates  are 

imposed  upon  the  raw  materials  and  upon  yarns,  based  upon  foreign  valuations. 

Woolen  or  worsted  cloths,  shawls,  and  all  other  woven  fabrics,  made  wholly  £r  in 
part  of  wool,  worsted,  or  other  like  materials,  and  weighing  over  4 ounces  per  square 
yard,  value  nt>t  exceeding  80  cents  per  pound,  35  cents  per  pound  and  35  per  cent,  ad 
valorem;  values  above  80  cents  aud  not  exceeding  $1  per  pound,  40  cents  per  pound 
and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; values  above  $1  per  pouud,  45  cents  per  pound  and  50 
per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

As  the  duty  on  scoured  wool  is.  30  cents  or  36  cents  per  pound,  according  to  the 
value,  aud  it  takes  1-J  pounds  of  clean  wool  to  make  a pound  of  finished  goods  of  the 
finer  qualities,  45  cents  per  pound  duty  on  the  goods  is  not  an  offset  for  the  duty  paid 
on  the  wool  alone.  The  cleanest  scoured  wools  available  will  not  yield  more  than  90 
per  cent,  of  clean  wool.  The  above  rate  of  45  cents  per  pound  and  50  per  cent,  is  not 
more  u protection”  than  the  wool-grower  demands. 

C.  — Schedule  for  duties  on  manufactures  of  wool,  provided  the  raw  material,  classes  1 and 

2,  are  subject  to  the  rates  imposed  by  the  present  tariff. 


SPECIFIC  RATES. 

Cents. 

Wool  tops,  including  all  combed  and  carded  wools,  costing  at  the  place  of  ship- 
ment to  the  United  States  under  60  cents  per  pound per  pound. . 30 

Over  60  cents  per  pound do 40 

Noils,  shoddy,  waste,  &c . do 15 

Yarns  of  worsted  or  wool  or  mixed  with  other  materials  : 

Value  under  30  cents  per  pound do 18 

Valued  at  30  cents  and  under  40  cents  per  pound do 20 

Valued  at  40  cents  and  under  50  cents  per  pound do 27 

Valued  at  50  cents  and  under  60  cents  per  pound do 33$- 

Valued  at  60  cents  aud  under  70  cents  per  pound do 40 

Valued  at  70  cents  and  under  80  cents  per  pound do 47 

Valued  at  80  cents  and  under  90  cents  per  pound do 53 

Valued  at  90  cents  and  above do 60 

Cloths,  and  all  other  woven  fabrics  of  which  wool,  worsted,  hair,  or  other  like 
materials  form  the  principal  component  part  do 35 


and  in  addition  thereto  4 cent  per  pouud  for  each  pick  per  square  inch,  counting 
both  warp  and  tilling.  Picks  composed  of  two  threads,  twisted  together  or  other- 
wise, to  count  as  1.2  picks;  and  if  composed  of  more  than  two  threads  to  count  as 
1.3  picks  each,  including  threads*  of  silk  or  other  material. 


REVISION  OF  TIIE  TARIFF. 


291 


D. — Schedule  for  duties  on  wool  and  woolens , provided  the  present  tax  of  10  cent,  per  pound 
is  imposed  upon  wools  imported  unwashed , classes  1 and  2. 


Cents. 


Unwashed  wool,  classes  1 and  2 per  pound..  10 

Washed  wool,  classes  1 and  2 do *15 

Scoured  wool,  classes  1 and  2 do 20 

Combed  or  carded  wool,  tops,  &c do 30 


Or,  in  lieu  thereof,  33£  per  cent,  on  the  market  value  at  the  port  of  entry. 


Noils,  waste,  and  shoddy per  pound..  15 

Yarns  of  wool,  worsted,  or  other  like  materials,  or  of  which  wool  shall  be  a 

component  part,  ad  valorem,  on  market  value  at  port  of  entry per  cent..  37| 

Cloths  and  all  woolen  fabrics,  or  composed  of  mixed  materials,  wool  or  worsted 

being  the  chief  component  part per  cent,  ad  valorem..  45 

On  values  at  the  port  of  entry — clothing do 50 


[James  McCreery  & Co.,  wool  and  woolens .] 

New  York,  December  1,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  We  have  the  honor  to  hand  you  herewith  the  schedule  for 
wools  and  woolens  referred  to  in  our  letter  of  the  25th  ultimo. 

You  will  observe  that  our  woolen  schedule  naturally  follows  our  silk 
schedule,  and  that  in  the  former  we  have  made  no  provision  for  mixed 
fabrics  containing  “ wool  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other 
animals”  combined,  with  “five  per  centum  or  over  by  weight  of  silk,” 
such  fabrics  being  provided  for  in  our  silk  schedule. 

# # # # # # * 

Very  respectfully, 

JAMES  McOREERY  & CO. 


SCHEDULE  RECOMMENDED  AS  A SUBSTITUTE  FOR  SCHEDULE  “k”  OF  THE  PRESENT 

TARIFF  LAW. 

I.  All  wools,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  unwashed  or  washed, 
free.  (See  352  to  359  of  present  law.) 

II.  Wools,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals  on  the  skin,  free.  (See  360 
of  present  law.) 

III.  Woolen  rags,  shoddy,  mungo,  waste,  and  flocks,  free.  (See  361  of  present  law.) 

IV.  Wooleu  and  worsted  yarns,  and  all  yarns  made  from  the  hair  of  the  alpaca, 
goat,  or  other  animals,  or  of  which  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other 
animals  shall  be  a component  part,  the  remainder  being  some  other  textile  than  silk, 
25  cents  per  pound.  (See  363  of  present  law.) 

V.  Goods  in  the  piece  not  hereinafter  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for,  com- 
posed wholly  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  or  of 
which  75  per  centum  by  weight  shall  be  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat, 
or  other  animals,  the  remainder  being  some  other  textile  than  silk,  9 cents  per  square 
yard  and  35  cents  per  pound.  (See  363,  364,  and  365  of  present  law.) 

VI.  The  same  when  containing  less  than  seventy-five  per  centum  by  weight  of  wool, 
worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  the  remainder  being  some  other 
textile  than  silk,  6 cents  per  square  yard  and  25  cents  per  pound.  (See  362  and  365  of 
present  law.) 

VII.  Hats,  caps,  bonnets,  webbings,  gorings,  suspenders,  braces,  beltings,  bindings, 
braids,  galoons,  fringes,  gimps,  cords,  cords  and  tassels,  dress  trimmings,  laces  not 

* The  above  rates  of  10  cents  on  unwashed  and  15  cents  on  washed  wools  are  more 
than  45  per  cent,  on  the  average  values  of  the  domestic  wools  in  the  principal  markets 
of  this  country  for  the  past  year.  _ Therefore  45  per  cent,  on  cloths  is  not  higher  than 

the  wool  duty. 


292  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


made  by  hand,  head-nets,  buttons,  and  orDaments,  composed  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair 
of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  or  of  which  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  al- 
paca, goat,  or  other  animals  shall  be  a component  part,  the  remainder  being  other  tex- 
tile than  silk,  80  cents  per  pound.  (See  362,  363,  and  308  of  present  law.) 

VIII.  Laces  made  by  hand,  composed  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat, 
or  other  animals,  $2  per  pound.  (See  362 and  363  of  present  law.) 

IX.  Knit  goods  and  all  goods  made  on  knitting-frames  not  specially  enumerated  or 
provided  for  in  this  act,  composed  wholly  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat, 
or  other  animals,  or  of  which  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  ani- 
mals shall  be  a component  part,  the  remainder  being  some  other  textile  than  silk,  60 
cents  per  pound.  (See  363  of  present  law.) 

X.  Articles  made  up  in  whole  or  in  part  by  the  tailor,  seamstress,  milliner,  or  manu- 
facturer, composed  wholly  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  ani- 
mals, or  of  which  75  per  cent,  by  weight  shall  be  composed  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair 
of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  the  remainder  being  some  other  textile  than  silk 
$2  per  pound.  (See  366  and  367  of  present  law.) 

XI.  The  same,  when  composed  of  less  than  75  per  centum.,  by  weight,  of  wool,  wor- 
sted, the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  the  remainder  being  some  other 
textile  than  silk,  $1.50  per  pound.  (See  366  and  367  of  present  law.) 

XII.  Provided,  however,  that  no  article  made  up,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  the  tailor, 
seamstress,  milliner,  or  manufacturer  shall  be  admitted  at  a less  rate  of  duty  than 
would  be  imposed  upon  the  materials  of  which  it  is  composed  if  imported  separately. 
(See  366  and  367  of  present  law.) 

XIII.  Blankets,  shawls,  scarfs,  handkerchiefs,  curtains,  screens,  table,  stand,  piano, 
and  other  covers,  except  as  hereinafter  provided  for,  when  woven  whole,  shall  be 
classified  as  goods  in  the  piece  under  paragraphs  V or  VI,  and  when  composed  of  two 
or  more  pieces  joined  together  they  shall  be  classified  as  articles  made  up  in  whole  or 
in  part  under  paragraphs  X or  XI.  (See  362  and  363  of  present  law.) 

XIV.  Goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  classified  under  paragraphs  V to  XI  inclusive 
shall  be  subject  to  the  following  rates  of  duty  in  addition  to  the  rate  or  rates  herein- 
before provided,  viz : 

XV.  When  embroidered  wholly  or  partly  with  silk  or  metal,  $1  per  pound,  and  when 
embroidered  with  some  other  textile  than  silk  or  metal,  75  cents  per  pound,  which 
shall  be  levied  upon  the  entire  weight  of  the  piece  or  article  embroidered. 

XVI.  Aubusson,  Axminster,  Chenille,  Saxony,  Wilton,  Tournay  velvet,  Turkish, 
Persian,  Indian,  and  oriental  carpets,  rugs,  mats,  screens,  covers,  and  bedsides  woven 
whole,  20  cents  per  square  foot.  (See  369,  370,  and  378  of  present  law.) 

XVII.  Aubusson,  Axminster,  Chenille,  Saxony,  Wilton,  and  Tournay  velvet  car- 
petings imported  by  linear  measurement,  90  cents  per  square  yard.  (See  369, 370,  and 
378  of  present  law.) 

XVIII.  Brussels  carpetings,  rugs,  mats,  screens,  covers,  bedsides,  and  other  portions 
of  such  carpets  or  carpetings,  42  cents  per  square  yard.  (See  371  and  378  of  present 
law.) 

XIX.  Patent  velvet  and  tapestry  velvet  carpetings,  rugs,  mats,  screens,  covers,  bed- 
sides, and  other  portions  of  such  carpets  and  carpetings,  printed  on  the  warp  or  other- 
wise, 36  cents  per  square  yard.  (See  372  and  378  of  present  law.) 

XX.  Tapestry-brussels  carpetings,  rugs,  mats,  screens,  covers,  bed-sides,  and  other 
portions  of  such  carpets  or  carpetings,  printed  on  the  warp  or  otherwise,  30  cents  per 
square  yard.  (See  373  and  378  of  present  law.) 

XXI.  Treble  ingrain,  three-ply,  and  worsted-chain  Venetian  carpetings,  rugs,  mats, 
screens,  covers,  bed-sides,  and- other  portions  of  such  carpets  or  carpetings,  18  cents  per 
square  yard.  (See  374  and  378  of  present  law.) 

XXII.  Yarn  Venetian  and  two-ply  ingrain  carpetings,  rugs,  mats,  screens,  covers, 
bed-sides,  and  other  portions  of  such  carpets  or  carpetings,  12  cents  per  square  yard. 
(See  375  and  378  of  present  law.) 

XXIII.  Druggets  and  bookings,  printed,  colored,  or  otherwise,  18  cents  per  square 
yard.  (See  376  of  present  law.) 

XXIV.  Hemp  or  jute  carpetings,  6 cents  per  square  yard.  (See  377  of  present  law.) 

XXV.  Hassocks,  carpets,  and  carpetings  of  wool,  flax,  or  cotton,  or  parts  of  either, 
or  other  material  not  otherwise  herein  specified,  40  per  centum  ad  valorem.  (See  378 
of  present  law.) 

XXVI.  Endless  belts  or  felt  for  paper  or  printing  machines,  25  cents  per  pound. 
(See  379  of  present  law.) 

XXVII.  On  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided 
for  in  this  act,  made  wholly  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other 
animals,  or  partly  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals, 
the  remainder  being  some  other  textile  than  silk,  40  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

In  ascertaining  the  percentage  by  weight  of  wool  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca, 
goat,  or  other  animals,  contained  in  any  fabric,  the  threads  containing  wool,  worsted, 
the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  combined  with  some  other  textile  than 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  293 

silk,  shall  be  weighed  and  classified  as  they  would  be  if  composed  wholly  of  wool, 
worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals. 

Goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  composed  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  nlpaca, 
goat,  or  other  animals,  combined  with  other  textile  or  textiles,  when  containing  less 
than  5 per  centum  by  weight  of  silk,  shall  be  classified  as  if  they  contained  no  silk. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

JAMES  McCREERY  & CO. 

New  York,  December  1.  1885. 


[Rushville  Shawl  Mills,  woolen  shawls .] 


Rushville,  III.,  November  14,  1885. 


Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir:  My  attention  to  the  tariff  on  woolen  goods  by  the  inclosed 
circular  has  disturbed  me  more  than  I care  to  admit. 

1 hoped  that  the  tariff  on  woolens  had  been  settled  lor  years  to  come. 
We  all  agreed  to  the  reduction  of  1883,  although  it  was  hurtful,  on  the 
understanding  that  the  disturbing  of  confidence  should  cease  until  at 
least  the  working  of  the  present  arrangement  could  be  tested.  It  does 
seem  to  me  to  be  an  unfortunate  thing  that  this  thing  cannot  be  let  to 
rest.  We  cannot  compete  if  there  should  be  a further  reduction,  and 
this  enterprise  would  have  to  close  without  a doubt. 

We  manufacture  shawb,  the  best  goods,  weighing  40  ounces,  the 
wool  to  day  costing,  unwashed,  24  cents  per  pound."  This  wool  loses 
from  60  to  65  per  cent.,  making  the  wool  cost  for  each  shawl  40  cents 
per  pound,  or  $1  per  shawl ; we  pay  for  labor  $1.60  on  each  shawl,  the 
dyes,  oils,  and  fuel,  together  with  incidental  expenses,  costing  to  day 
75  cents  on  each  shawl.  This  does  not  include  interest  on  capital  in- 
vested in  plant  and  other  ways,  which  is  about  original  cost  of  plant, 
$90,000  for  plant  alone.  Now  we  receive  net  cash,  less  freight,  $3.70 
for  this  shawl,  costing  $3.50  at  least,  and  manufacturing  about  50  per 
day.  I appeal  to  you  as  a business  man  to  place  yourself  in  our  place, 
and  then  to  do  all  you  can  to  stop  this  tinkering  with  the  industries  of 
the  country. 

Eespectfully  yours, 


LESTER  GORDON, 

Superintendent. 


[Cazenovia  Woolen  Company,  woolen  goods . ] 

Cazenovia,  N.  Y.,  November  23, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  United  States  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir  : As  manufacturers  and  their  employ 4s  have  suffered  severely 
from  the  recent  agitation  of  the  tariff  question,  we  all  hope  that  there 
will  be  stability  enough  in  the  present  administration  to  let  the  matter 
rest  for  the  present,  and  that  the  business  men  shall  have  some  assur- 
ance of  this  fact,  that  there  may  be  a season  of  prosperity  under  the 
new  rule. 

I am,  sir,  most  truly,  yours, 


J.  F.  GREEN,  Agent. 


294  report  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury, 


[L.  W.  Faulkner  & Sons,  woolen  manufactures.'] 

Lowell,  Mass.,  November  17,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , B.  (j. : 

Sir  : We  are  running  32  sets  wool  cards  for  ladies’  and  men’s  wear, 
and  do  respectfully  assert  that  as  long  as  the  present  duty  is  maintained 
on  wool  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  our  industry  to  maintain  itself 
that  the  present  system  of  compound  duties  be  kept  as  they  are,  and  we 
do  sincerely  pray  that  there  be  no  change  at  the  next  session  of  Con- 
gress of  the  tariff  on  wool  or  woolens,  as  it  will  unsettle  our  business, 
and  we  cannot  compete  with  the  foreign  manufacturers  without  free 
wool,  very  low-priced  labor,  and  a reduction  of  all  values  of  real  estate, 
which  would  cripple  us  for  some  time.  All  of  these  three  changes  would 
be  unjust  to  a great  many  people. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

L.  W.  FAULKNER  & SONS. 


[J.  H.  Abbott  & Co.,  woolen  goods  and  yarns.] 

Gouverneur,  N.  Y.,  November  19,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning: 

Sir  : In  response  to  your  circular  of  July  18,  we  would  say  that  the 
wool  clip  of  the  United  States  for  1883  was  something  over  300,000,000 
pounds,  netting  the  growers  more  than  $100,000,000.  The  slight  re- 
duction in  the  tariff  in  1883  on  the  product  of  worsted  wools  increased 
very  largely  the  importation  of  worsted  yarns,  and  the  construction  of 
the  law  by  the  customs  officers  in  relation  to  worsted  cloths  (which 
construction  may  not  have  been  intended  by  the  framers  of  the  bill)  in- 
creased also  the  importation  of  worsted  cloths.  The  result  was,  our 
yarn  mills  were  shut  down,  our  markets  were  filled  with  foreign  worst- 
eds ; consequently  quite  a large  percentage  of  our  woolen  machinery 
has  been  idle.  Wools  accumulated  and  prices  declined  to  a point  that 
they  were  unremunerative  to  the  grower.  Any  further  reduction  in  the 
tariff  on  wool  would,  in  our  judgment,  exterminate  the  wool  industry  of 
this  conntry.  We  believe  it  should  be  fully  protected,  and  so  long  as 
there  is  a duty  on  wool  it  is  indispensable  that  the  manufacturer  should 
be  correspondingly  protected,  and  also  protected  against  the  cheap  labor 
of  Europe.  We  therefore  believe  that  the  present  system  of  compound 
duties  is  the  most  feasible  one  that  can  be  adopted,  and  we  dread  any 
legislation,  knowing  that  the  interests  involved  are  so  immense  and  so 
intricate  that  they  must  materially  suffer  under  the  uncertainties  of 
any  discussion  in  Congress.  What  we  most  need  is  a permanent  basis 
to  work  from,  and  it  would  be  very  gratifying  if  our  business  interests 
could  be  placed  outside  the  realm  of  politics. 

Very  respectfully, 


J.  U.  ABBOTT  & CO. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


295 


[D,  R.  Campbell,  cassimeres,  cloakings,  and  repellents.'] 

Sangerville,  Me.,  November  20,  1885* 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.  : 

My  Dear  Sir:  As  a woolen  manufacturer  having  $200,000  invested 
in  the  business,  I wish  to  enter  my  protest  against  any  change  in  the 
present  existing  tariff  on  wool  and  woolens. 

That  in  case  of  any  revision  of  the  tariff  in  our  next  Congress,  so  long 
as  a duty  is  imposed  upon  wool  it  is  indispensable  for  the  prosperity  of 
the  woolen  manufacture  that  the  present  system  of  compound  duties 
upon  woolens  should  be  strictly  maintained. 

I am,  respectfully,  yours, 

D.  R.  CAMPBELL. 

P.  S. — I have  been  in  this  business  over  thirty-five  years,  and  know 
of  what  I am  talking  about.. 


[The  American  Woolen  Company,  Barry  Mills.] 

Barry,  III.,  November  10,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : Any  further  reduction  in  tariff’,  in  our  opinion,  would  be 
fatal  to  the  woolen  industries  of  this  country,  and  would  give  to  Euro- 
peans the  advantage  which  for  years  they  have  most  desired. 

In  Great  Britain  Americans  are  most  unblushingly  informed  that  the 
English  are  born  manufacturers,  whilst  citizens  of  the  United  States 
are  good  only  as  farmers,  and  had  better  stick  to  the  plow. 

Beyond  an  ardent  desire  to  get  the  thin  edge  of  the  wedge  into  Ameri- 
can trade,  Europeans  have  no  further  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the 
country,  and  we  are  satisfied  that  the  present  Administration,  being 
held  in  high  favor  by  the  people,  are  not  going  to  reduce  their  record 
by  permitting  any  further  arguments  or  reduction  of  the  tariff  on 
woolens. 

Kespectfully  yours, 

American  Woolen  Company, 
WALTER  EIELDHOUSE, 

Manager. 


[James  Lees  & Sons,  woolen  and  woolen  yarns.] 

Bridgeport  (opposite  Norristown),  Pa., 

November  21,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  We  are  very  much  opposed  to  any  change  in  the  tariff 
laws,  as  well  as  any  agitation  on  the  subject,  as  it  interferes  with  busi- 
ness while  these  matters  are  discussed.  No  doubt  there  are  certain 
matters  that  could  be  changed  which  would  do  no  injury  and  do 
good;  but  when  this  question  is  opened  what  guarantee  is  there  that 
some  things  may  be  done,  and  the  new  tariff  would  be  no  better  than 
the  old  ? We  do  say,  however,  the  u moiety  ” act  should  not  have  been 


296 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


repealed.  As  the  law  now  stands,  you  are  compelled  to  show  the  “ in- 
tention” on  the  part  of  an  importer  to  defraud  before  you  can  convict. 
The  court  is  even  obliged  to  so  charge  the  jury — that  "the  “intention” 
to  defraud  must  be  shown.  It  is  a very  difficult  matter  to  prove  the 
intention  of  a person,  so  conviction  is  frequently  impossible.  We  are 
large  importers  ourselves,  and  we  find  a great  deal  of  very  unfair  com- 
petition on  the  part  of  those  who  have  no  regard  to  honest  business 
methods  and  the  sanctity  of  an  oath. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

* JAMES  LEES  & SONS. 


[Standard  Hosiery  Mills,  hosiery.'] 

Carthage,  N.  Y.,  November  24, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.  : 

Dear  Sir:  I have  a moderate-sized  hosiery  mill  at  this  place,  em- 
ploying about  05  hands  in  mill  and  about  as  many  more  outside.  Our 
manufacturing  interests  here  are  limited,  and  this  help  depend  upon  my 
mill  being  kept  in  operation ; the  margin  now  being  so  small  in  manu- 
facturing that  it  is  very  little  object  to  run.  In  answer  to  your  circular 
of  July  18  last,  I would  say  that  I trust  no  change  will  be  made  in 
the  present  wool  and  woolen  tariff,  and  that  no  general  revision  of  the 
tariff  will  be  made,  which  so  much  disturbs  the  business  interest  of  the 
country  and  proves  so  detrimental  to  our  manufacturing  interests,  which 
are  in  a very  depressed  condition. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

M.  P.  MASON. 


[Amazon  Hosiery  Company.] 

Michigan  City , Ind.,  November  19,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Sir  : In  addition  to  the  special  features  of  the  pamphlet  referred  to 
in  the  inclosed  circular  we  wish  especially  to  protest  against  the  constant 
changes  made  in  our  tariff  laws.  No  manufacturer  can  with  safety  pro- 
ceed in  the  prosecution  of  his  business  unless  he  can  rely  upon  the 
same  tariff  conditions.  Jobbers  will  not  place  orders  when  changes  in 
tariff  rates  are  liable  to  affect  values  of  merchandise.  Our  goods  are 
made  up  six  months  in  advance  of  the  needs  of  the  trade,  and  the  risk 
to  us  is  very  great  upon  goods  carried,  in  addition  to  the  reluctance  of 
buyers  to  place  advance  orders  when  changes  are  likely  to  occur.  We 
protest  against  any  change  in  present  tariff  laws  upon  either  raw  wool 
or  manufactured  goods,  but  if  changes  must  be  made  we  respectfully 
request  that  the  present  system  of  compound  duties  upon  woolens  be 
strictly  maintained. 

Respectfully  yours, 

Amazon  Hosiery  Company, 

Per  G.  W.  POWELL, 

President. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


297 


[Tlie  same.] 

Michigan  City,  Ind .,  November  25,  1885. 

Hou.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , 

Washington , J>.  O.  : 

Dear  Sir:  Replying  to  yours  of  the  23d,  I wish  very  much  to  im- 
press your  mind  with  the  fact  that  it  is  the  constant  changes  made  by 
Congress  in  our  tariff  laws  which  makes  the  business  of  a manufacturer 
so  unstable  and  so  hazardous.  I am  not  one  who  thinks  it  necessary 
to  the  prosperity  of  the  industry  I am  engaged  in  that  high  rates  of 
duties  should  be  imposed;  but  what  we  need  more  than  anything  else 
is  stability.  If  the  present  or  any  duties  are  to  be  levied  on  wool,  then 
a corresponding  duty  should  be  put  upon  woolen  fabrics,  and  in  addi- 
tion to  this  such  rate  of  duty  as  will  enable  manufacturers  to  pay  the 
laboring  interests  employed  the  same  rate  of  wages  as  are  now  paid. 
In  our  line  skilled  labor  is  paid  200  per  cent,  more  in  this  country  than 
across  the  water.  It  is  useless  to  ask  American  manufacturers  to  pay 
present  wages,  higher  rates  for  money,  and  yet  be  able  to  compete  with 
foreigners.  I do  not  consider  myself  an  expert  upon  tariff  matters,  but 
these  facts  are  so  patent  that  no  one  can  fail  to  see  them.  Above  all, 
stop  these  everlasting  changes.  Keep  one  set  of  books  open  for  more 
than  one  season. 

With  very  great  respect,  I am  yours,  &c., 

GEO.  W.  POWELL, 

President. 


[Conshohocken  Worsted  Mills,  specific  duties,  woolen  and  worsted  cloths  and  yarns.  ] 

Conshohocken,  Pa.,  August  1,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C.: 

Dear  Sir  : Your  circular  dated  the  22d  ultimo,  was  duly  received, 
and  has  received  m^ careful  attention. 

In  accordance  with  your  request,  I beg  to  present  the  following  facts 
and  suggestions  in  regard  to  changes  in  the  existing  tariff*  laws. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  present  methods  of  entry  and  ap- 
praisement of  imported  merchandise  admitof  great  evasiousof  the  laws. 
The  chief  reason  of  this  is  undoubtedly  because  the  duties  are  levied 
ad  valorem.  The  only  remedy  for  the  evil  seems  to  be  the  adoption  of 
specific  duties,  which,  your  circular  states,  has  already  been  suggested. 
In  common  with  all  manufacturers,,  we  have  suffered  from  the  evasions 
of  the  tariff  laws  and  the  defective  methods  of  entry  and  appraisement 
of  imported  goods,  and  wecoidially  approve  of  the  adoption  of  specific, 
duties  as  the  best  means  of  avoiding  infraction  of  the  law7  and  prevent- 
ing loss  to  those  manufacturers  who  obey  the  law7  and  who  are  there- 
fore entitled  to  protection  from  the  acts  of  those  .who  disregard  it.  In 
the  levying  of  specific  duties  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  they  should  be 
so  adjusted  to  the  unit  of  weight  or  measure  as  to  be  equivalent  at  least 
to  the  present  ad  valorem  duties.  If  this  is  not  done,  or  if  they  are  so 
adjusted  as  to  effect  any  decrease  in  the  protection  to  home  manufact- 
ures afforded  by  the  present  tariff  laws,  the  effect  would  undoubtedly 


298  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


be  disastrous  to  the  workingmen,  as  it  would  necessitate  a decrease  in 
their  wages.  The  margin  of  profit  on  manufactured  goods  in  the  pres- 
ent condition  of  the  market,  and  the  return  for  invested  capital,  is  so 
small  that  any  reduction  caused  by  a lowering  of  the  duties  on  imported 
merchandise  would  necessarily  cause  a corresponding  red  action  in  wages, 
a result  which  is,  of  course,  to  be  avoided. 

In  regard  to  our  own  business  we  have  to  present  the  following  facts: 
The  Consliokocken  Worsted  Mills  is  a stock  company  with  a capital  of 
$000,000.  We  operate  three  mills,  employ  642  hands,  to  whom  we  pay 
monthly,  on  the  average,  about  $15,000.  We  manufacture  woolen  and 
worsted  yarns  and  woolen  and  worsted  suitings.  Our  machinery  is, 
generally,  of  the  latest  and  most  improved  kinds,  and  is,  to  a great  ex- 
tent, imported  from  England. 

In  regard  to  the  difference  of  cost  of  manufacture  betweeu  this  coun- 
try and  foreign  nations,  we  would  state  that  it  is  our  opinion  that  goods 
of  the  style  and  finish  that  we  manufacture  could  be  produced  in 
France  or  Germany  for  about  one-half  what  they  cost  here,  the  differ- 
ence being  due  to  the  wide  difference  in  the  wages  paid  for  labor  and 
in  the  cost  of  the  raw  materials. 

For  instance,  cloth  that  could  be  placed  on  the  market  from  our  mills 
at  $1.60  per  yard  could  be  placed  on  the  market  if  manufactured  in 
France  or  Germany  at  80  cents  per  yard.  This  shows  clearly  the  ne- 
cessity for  maintaining  the  same  degree  of  protection  afforded  by  the 
present  tariff  laws,  and  also  the  advantage  that  would  result  to  our 
manufacturers  and  the  labor  employed  by  admitting  raw  materials  free 
of  duty.  In  our  opinion  this  change — the  admission  of  raw  material  free 
of  duty — is  a reform  in  the  tariff  that  is  imperatively  demanded  by  the 
condition  of  manufacturing  interests,  and  would  greatly  aid  in  improving 
business  generally.  Our  mills  are  so  situated  that  supplies  are  readily 
obtained  and  products  sent  to  mai'ket  by  rail.  Steam-power  is  in  use 
in  all  our  mills.  Most  of  our  workmen  are  skilled  laborers,  and  make 
good  wages;  some  of  the  female  operators  make  from  $12  to  $15  per 
week. 


By  a recent  State  law  machinery  is  exempt  from  taxation  in  this  State. 

In  conclusion,  we  would  again  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the 
two  changes  which  we  think  should  be  made  in  the  existing  tariff,  viz: 

1.  The  adoption  of  specific  duties  in  place  of  the  present  injurious  and 
unjust  ad  valorem  duties. 

2.  The  admission  of  raw  materials  free  of  duties. 

We  believe  that  these  changes  would  more  fully  protect  labor  from 
ruinous  reductions,  would  secure  a better  observance  of  the  tariff  laws 
and  protect  our  manufacturers  from  losses  caused  by  evasions  of  the 
laws,  and  would  do  much  to  increase  the  business  prosperity  of  the 
country. 

Very  respectfully, 

GEORGE  BULLOCK, 

President  and  Treasurer  of  Consliokocken  Worsted  Mills. 


Revision  of  the  tariff. 


299 


[The  National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers.] 

THE  WOOLEN  TARIFF. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir  : The  undersigned,  in  behalf  of  the  National  Association  of  Wool 
Manufacturers,  an  organization  representing  the  most  important  estab- 
lishments in  every  branch  of  the  wool  manufacture  in  the  United  States, 
in  respectful  response  to  your  circular  of  July  18, 1885,  asking  for  infor- 
mation bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  possible  revision  of  the  tariff, 
have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  statement,  made  in  conformity 
with  your  invitation  to  give  the  fullest  possible  expression  of  our  views 
on  the  general  subject  indicated,  in  such  manner  and  lorm  as  we  might 
deem  best.  This  communication  expresses,  with  the  frankness  which 
your  invitation  demands,  our  views  as  to  the  policy  of  reconsidering  the 
existing  tariff  policy,  while  it  is  made  with  the  earnest  purpose  of  fur- 
nishing to  you  all  the  information  available  that  will  aid  you,  in  case  of 
a possible  revision  of  the  tariff,  to  recommend  to  Congress  a schedule 
of  duties  on  wool  manufactures,  consistent  with  the  objects  of  revenue, 
just  to  consumers,  and  conducive  to  the  interests  of  manufacturers  and 
the  general  productive  interests  of  the  country. 

The  general  subject  of  your  circular  involves  two  questions,  first,  the 
expediency  of  any  revision  of  the  tariff  at  the  present  time  and  under 
existing  circumstances;  and,  secondly,  in  case  of  a general  revision  of 
the  tariff,  the  duties  in  the  department  which  we  represent  required  for 
the  objects  above  indicated. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  A GENERAL  TARIFF  REVISION. 

The  first  of  these  questions,  the  expediency  of  any  tariff  revision  at 
the  present  time,  in  its  application  to  our  particular  industries,  demands 
our  first  consideration. 

Upon  this  point  we  beg  to  repeat  some  expressions  of  opinion  made 
to  the  last  Congress,  which  met  the  general  approval  of  the  wool  man- 
ufacturers of  the  country,  and  which  are  equally  applicable  to  the  ques- 
tion of  a tariff  revision  by  the  next  Congress. 

Resolutions  o/1884. — In  a statement  presented  to  the  last  Congress 
we  submitted  among  others  the  following  resolutions: 

Resolved,  That  a discriminating  and  radical  revision  of  the  duties  on  manufactures 
of  wool  was  made  in  the  legislation  of  March  3,  1883,  affecting  a serious  reduction  of 
those  duties ; that  preliminary  to  this  legislation  and  conducing  to  it,  a searching  in- 
vestigation was  made  by  the  Tariff  Commission,  the  Committee  on  Finance,  and  the 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  and  that  all  the  light 
available  was  thus  thrown  upon  the  questions  arising  in  the  proper  determination  of 
those  duties.  * * * 

Resolved,  That,  so  far  as  this  committee  is  informed,  the  wool  manufacturers  of  the 
United  States  are  prepared  to  accept  the  present  tariff  on  wool  and  woolens,  notwith- 
standing its  reductions,  as  a wise  and  proper  adjustment  of  the  duties  until  a practi- 
cal experience  of  the  working  of  this  tariff’  shall  have  demonstrated  how  it  may  be 
amended;  and  that,  whatever  objections  they  may  originally  have  had  to  certain  de- 
tails in  this  tariff,  they  desire  its  continuance  for  the  present,  because  their  business 
is  adjusted  to  it,  and  is  based  upon  the  expectation  of  its  continuance. 

Objections  of  1884  revived. — In  that  statement  we  declared  that  any 
radical  revision  of  the  woolen  tariff  at  that  time  (February,  1884),  and 


300  REPOET  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


the  conditions  are  in  no  respect  changed  by  the  lapse  of  less  than  two 
years,  would  be  unjust.  We  showed  that — 

The  legislation  of  March  3,  1883,  pledged  the  national  faith  that  for  a period  con- 
siderable enough  to  test  the  working  of  that  tariff,  there  should  be  no  tariff  agita- 
tion, and  that  the  industries  should  have  repose.  That  legislation  was  not  the  pledge 
of  a party,  but  of  the  nation.  It  was  a treaty  with  the  national  industries,  and  like 
a treaty  with  a foreign  power  should  be  respected,  even  by  those  who  do  not  approve 
it.  It  was  in  this  faith  that  the  woolen  industry,  at  least,  accepted  hurtful  reduc- 
tions, submitted  to  obnoxious  provisions,  and  favored,  upon  the  whole,  a tariff  much 
less  perfect  than  they  would  have  desired — because  they  were  ready  to  submit  to 
temporary  sacrifice  for  the  certaint  y of  future  peace.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the 
effects  of  any  material  modification  of  the  wool  and  woolen  duties  are  instantly  felt 
in  every  woolen  mill  in  the  country,  and  changes  in  the  system  of  manufacture  are 
at  once  made  to  conform  to  them.  In  the  faith  of  the  comparative  permanence,  at 
least,  of  the  late  legislation  we  have  contracted  or  enlarged  our  establishments  and 
adapted  our  machinery,  obtained  our  supplies  of  raw  material,  designed  our  goods, 
and  made  contracts  for  delivering  them.  In  a word,  our  whole  business  arrangements 
are  founded  on  the  guarantees  of  the  recent  tariff  legislation.  * * * Instability  in 

tariff  legislation  has  been  the  bane  of  the  woolen  industry  in  former  times.  The 
comparative  repose  from  disturbing  legislation  succeeding  the  tariff  of  1867  was,  with 
some  individual  exceptions,  the  brightest  in  our  history.  In  no  period  has  there  been 
such  an  improvement  in  processes  and  fabrics,  or  so  many  new  ones  introduced,  such 
an  increase  in  wool  production,  or  such  a diminution  in  the  prices  of  goods  to  con- 
sumers. Our  confidence  that  these  lessons  would  not  be  lost  upon  an  intelligent  Con- 
gress has  led  us  to  hope  that  we  might  be  spared  for  a time  the  evils  of  a vacillating 
tariff ; and  a permanent  character  has  been  given  to  our  constructions,  investments, 
and  business  arrangements,  corresponding  to  what  we  felt  was  our  well-grounded 
confidence  in  the  stability  of  the  late  tariff  legislation. 

Reductions  upon  woollens  by  tariff  of  1883. — Although  there  is  no  in- 
timation in  your  circular  of  an  intent  on  your  part  to  recommend  a re- 
duction of  duties  in  such  scheme  as  you  may  propose  for  the  revision 
of  the  tariff,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  a very  considerable  reduction  of 
duties  is  contemplated  by  those  who  favor  a general  tariff  revision  by 
the  next  Congress.  The  question,  therefore,  whether  there  was  not  as 
large  a reduction  in  the  legislation  of  1883  as  was  required  by  the  pop- 
ular demand  and  the  interests  of  manufacturers  and  of  labor,  is  per- 
tinent to  that  of  the  expediency  of  revision. 

In  the  communication  above  referred  to  we  showed  that  by  the  tariff 
of  March  3,  1883,  all  the  reduction  was  made  in  the  wool  manufactures 
that  was  demanded  by  public  opinion,  or  was  consistent  with  the  secur- 
ity of  these  manufactures  in  view  of  foreign  competition,  while  in  many 
cases  the  reduction  was  so  large  as  to  seriously  disturb  important 
branches  of  manufacture.  We  showed  that— 

The  reduction  on  flannels,  blankets,  knit  goods,  woolen  and  worsted  yarns,  manu- 
factures of  worsted,  &c.,  was  as  follows,  namely  : On  goods  valued  at  not  exceeding 
30  cents  per  pound,  from  32.78  to  34.78  per  cent.  On  goods  valued  at  above  30  cents 
per  pound,  and  not  exceeding  40  cents  per  pound,  the  reduction  ranges  from  25.93  to 
29.41  per  cent.  On  goods  valued  at  above  40  cents,  and  not  exceeding  60  cents  per 
pound,  the  reduction  ranges  from  23.53  to  27.06  per  cent.  On  goods  valued  at  above 
60  cents,  and  not  exceeding  80  cents  per  pound,  the  reduction  ranges  from  23.53  to 
26.08  per  cent.  On  goods  valued  at  above  80  cents  per  pound  the  reduction  ranges 
from  13.97  per  cent,  on  goods  valued  at  81  cents  per  pound  to  7.31  per  cent,  on  goods 
valued  at  $1.50  per  pound. 

The  reduction  on  woolen  cloths,  worsted  shawls,  &c.,  was  as  follows,  namely: 
On  goods  valued  at  not  exceeding  80  cents  per  pound  it  ranges  from  20.13  per  cent, 
on  goods  valued  at  70  cents  per  pound  to  24.80  per  cent,  on  goods  valued  at  30  cents 
per  pound.  On  the  finer  and  higher-priced  goods  valued  at  exceeding  80  cents  per 
pound,  it  ranges  from  7.31  per  cent,  on  goods  valued  at  $1.50  per  pound  to  13.97  per 
cent,  on  goods  valued  at  81  cents  per  pound. 

In  carpets,  a branch  of  manufacture  having  a production  in  1880  of  exceeding 
$31,000,000  in  value  and  employing  20,000  operatives,  the  reduction  was  24.82  per 
cent.  These  calculations  are  exclusive  of  the  reduction  made  by  the  abolition  of  the 
duty  on  charges  and  commissions  in  the  last  tariff,  which  reduction  is  estimated  as 
equal  to  an  additional  2\  per  cent. 


REVISION  OF  TIIE  TARIFF. 


301 


We  showed,  further,  that  the  only  branch  of  the  wool  manufacture 
in  which  no  material  reduction  wns  made  by  the  last  revision,  the  all- 
wool  dress-goods  manufacture,  was  provided  with  a totally  inadequate 
duty  in  the  tariff  repealed,  and  is  subjected  to  a weight  of  foreign  com- 
peting importations  exceeding  that  of  any  branch  of  American  industry, 
making  exemption  from  reduction  au  act  not  only  of  simple  justice,  but 
an  indispensable  condition  of  its  existence. 

Reduction  will  increase  revenue. — If  revision  of  the  tariff  is  urged 
now,  as  it  was  in  1884,  for  th^  object  of  reducing  the  duties,  and  with 
the  single  avowed  end  of  diminishing  the  revenue  and  depleting  a too 
redundant  Treasury,  we  need  offer  no  arguments  of  our  own  to  show 
that  this  end  cannot  be  obtained  by  reduction,  and  need  only  refer  you 
to  the  grand  argument  by  which  your  eminent  predecessor,  Mr.  Kobert 
J.  Walker,  justified  the  reductions  in  his  tariff  of  1846 — namely,  the 
lower  the  rates  of  duty  the  greater  the  revenue.  But  ir  we  are  correctly 
informed  of  your  estimate  of  the  condition  of  the  Treasury,  and  that 
its  further  depletion  is  not  required  by  the  public  interests,  the  grounds 
for  reduction  of  duties  must  be  changed,  and  new  arguments  for  this 
policy  must  be  adduced,  which,  as  they  cannot  be  anticipated,  cannot 
be  answered. 

Revision  will  disturb  the  relations  of  business. — We  do  not  enlarge 
upon  the  consequences  of  reduction  which  may  result  from  a tariff  re- 
vision, because  we  regard  a radical  change  in  the  existing  tariff  system 
as  a sufficient  evil  independently  of  possible  reductions.  The  business 
of  the  country  adjusts  itself  to  any  tariff  recognizing  in  the  main  its 
productive  interest  which  has  the  promise  of  permanency,  aud  with  con- 
fidence and  extent  of  enterprise  in  proportion  to  the  assurance  of  its 
permanency.  The  prosperity  of  the  individual  industries  does  not  de- 
pend upon  their  own  tariff  only,  but  scarcely  less  upon  the  general  system, 
for  each  industry  is  related  to  the  general  tariff  by  the  interests  of  its 
consumers  and  the  cost  of  its  supplies,  by  the  activity  of  general  busi- 
ness, the  rapidity  of  exchanges,  and  commercial  confidence,  so  depend- 
ent upon  a fixed  and  wise  economical  system. 

The  evil  of  tariff  changes,  therefore,  does  not  consist  only  in  the  re- 
ductions to  which  particular  industries  are  liable,  but  in  the  disturbance 
of  the  relations  of  the  industries  to  each  other,  to  which  they  have 
adapted  themselves — as  in  woolens,  to  the  duty  on  wool,  on  machinery, 
on  dyestuffs,  and  countless  supplies.  These  adjustments  cannot  be 
made  in  a day  ; they  are  the  work  of  time  ; and  the  equilibrium  which 
is  the  test  of  industrial  and  commercial  prosperity  cannot  be*  reached 
with  fluctuation  or  the  apprehension  of  fluctuation  in  legislation.  What 
Lord  Liverpool  said  of  England  sixty  years  ago  applies  with  equal  force 
to  this  country  and  now. 

Experience  proves  that  property  and  trade  will  adapt  themselves  in  time  to  mis- 
taken and  defective  laws  ; but  constant  fluctuations  in  our  legislation  on  such  sub- 
jects can  only  be  productive  of  disorder  aud  ruin.  If  every  year  there  is  to  be  change 
in  our  commercial  laws,  no  man  or  body  of  men  can  know  on  what  they  are  to  rely. 
Under  such  a course  of  policy,  neither  the  merchants  of  this  country  nor  those  of  for- 
eign nations  will  be  able  to  confide  in  us;  »and  our  distresses,  instead  of  being  re- 
lieved, will  be  multiplied  tenfold. 

Our  competitors  free  from  tariff  agitation. — This  lesson  of  her  wise 
statesman  England  has  never  forgotten,  while  our  own  country  has  per- 
petually vacillated  in  her  tariff  laws.  The  advantages  which  our  Euro- 
pean  competitors  enjoy  in  the  stability  of  their  tariffs  are  not  the  least 
of  those  against  which  American  productive  interests  have  to  contend 
in  the  struggles  to  retain  their  markets.  To  protect,  encourage,  and 


302  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

extend  the  manufactures  of  Great  Britain  has  been  the  wise  and  uni- 
form policy  of  her  statesmen  for  at  least  a century.  When  high  pro- 
. tective  duties  had  accomplished  their  work,  and  when  her  manufactur- 
ers determined  that  their  interests  lay  in  facilities  for  exportation,  in 
cheap  raw  materials  for  their  mills,  and  cheaper  food  for  their  workmen, 
free  trade  was  established,  and  has  continued  for  over  forty  years  with 
absolute  confidence  on  the  part  of  her  manufacturers  that  this  policy 
would  not  be  disturbed  except  at  their  demand.  The  interests  of  France 
and  Germany  demanded  the  policy  of  protection,  aud  the  great  indus- 
tries of  these  countries  have  literally  dictated  the  tariff  duties  required 
for  their  respective  interests,  while  they  are  exempt  from  all  apprehen- 
sion of  unfriendly  changes.  Remembering  that,  in  the  struggle  for  the 
command  of  our  own  market — the  indispensable  condition  of  prosperity, 
— the  advantage  of  our  foreigu  competitors  are  our  obstacles,  let  us 
contrast  this  security  and  stability  with  the  fluctuations  of  our  own 
tariff  laws  for  the  last  forty  years,  the  benign  policy  of  1842,  and  the 
disastrous  legislation  of  1846  and  1857,  the  encouragements  of  1863-764, 
the  anxieties  of  1866-767,  the  apprehension  of  destructive  legislation 
at  each  of  the  periods  of  tariff  agitation  of  1872,  1878,  1880,  aud  1884, 
and  we  cannot  but  see  that  instability  in  our  tariff*  laws  and  tbe  appre- 
hension of  hostile  legislation  have  at  times  greatly  retarded  our  indus- 
trial and  commercial  prosperity. 

Evil  of  apprehension. — The  apprehension  of  unfavorable  legislation  is 
scarcely  less  disastrous  than  the  reality.  To  a country  enjoying  a tariff 
system  which  it  has  accepted,  and  to  which  it  has  adapted  itself,  tariff* 
agitation  is  an  incalculable  calamity.  It  paralyzes  enterprise,  fright- 
ens capital,  depreciates  values,  and  deranges  labor.  Although  there  is 
a difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  extent  of  the  influence,  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  tariff'  agitation,  among  other  causes,  has  materially  con- 
tributed to  the  great  and  accelerating  industrial  and  commercial  de- 
pression of  the  last  four  years.  The  prosperity  of  1882  was  checked 
by  the  apprehension  preceding  the  legislation  of  1883 ; again  by  the 
threatened  reductions  of  the  Morrison  tariff*,  and,  finally,  by  the  un- 
certainty as  to  a future  economical  policy  attending  a Presidential  cam- 
paign and  a change  of  administration.  The  existing  tariff,  although 
its  passage  was  hailed  with  joyful  congratulation  by  the  business  com- 
munities as  a final  settlement  of  tariff  agitation,  has  hitherto  largely 
failed  of  its  anticipated  benefits  through  doubts  as  to  its  permanency. 
Let  it  haye  the  test  which  it  is  entitled  to,  and  which  it  has  not  yet  re- 
ceived— security  from  threatened  repeal ! This  we  believe  to  be  the 
sentiment  of  the  productive  interests  and  largely  of  the  commercial  in- 
terests of  the  country.  The  country  cannot  have  prosperity  until  it 
settles  down  upon  a fixed  economical  policy.  No  general  revision  of 
the  tariff  can  be  made  under  more  favorable  circumstances,  with  fuller 
information  and  expressions  of  opinion  from  all  productive  interests  and 
both  schools  of  economical  doctrine,  or  with  more  unity  on  the  part  of 
the  great  political  parties  than  in  the  revision  of  1883.  Another  revis- 
ion involves  the  certain  evil  of  continued  tariff*  agitation  and  business 
disturbance,  and  a postponement  of  the  repose  needed  for  recovering 
from  an  industrial  depression  unequaled  since  1857.  Let  the  glad  as- 
surance be  given  that  the  powerful  influence  of  the  administration  shall 
be  wielded  for  the  suppression  of  tariff*  agitation — for  the  better  en- 
forcement and  not  the  repeal  of  the  existing  system — and  the  country,  as  we 
believe,  will  rebound  from  its  depression  as  it  did  when  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  pledged  the  nation  and  all  future  administrators  of  its 
laws  to  the  defense  of  its  industries. 


REVISION  OE  THE  TARIFF. 


303 


The  undersigned,  therefore,  conclude  this  branch  of  their  response  by 
remonstrating,  with  all  the  earnestness  which  they  are  capable  of  ex- 
pressing, against  disturbing  the  business  cf  the  country  in  the  dawn  of 
its  revival  by  another  general  tariff  revision. 

SYSTEM  RECOMMENDED  IN  CASE  OF  TARIFF  REVISION. 

The  undersigned  propose  next  to  consider  the  second  question  in- 
volved in  your  inquiry,  namely,  in  case  of  a revision  of  a tariff,  the  du- 
ties on  manufactures  of  wool  required,  in  our  judgment,  for  the  promo- 
tion of  the  domestic  industry,  the  objects  of  revenue,  and  the  general 
productive  interests  of  the  country.  In  considering  this  branch  of  the 
subject  we  avail  ourselves  of  your  invitation  to  give  the  fullest  possible 
expression  of  our  views  in  such  manner  as  we  may  deem  best,  and  omit 
details  of  the  elements  of  cost  of  fabrication  requested  in  certain  of 
your  interrogatories,  because  from  the  peculiarities  of  our  manufacture, 
to  be  explained  hereafter,  impossible  to  be  obtained,  and,  in  our  case, 
Unnecessary  for  your  instruction,  as  the  reasons  for  the  duties  recom- 
mended are  otherwise  fully  given.  Our  refply  to  your  leading  inter- 
rogatory, namely,  as  to  the  advisability  of  substituting  specific  duties 
for  the  ad  valorem  duties,  now  applied  to  woolen  manufactures,  will  be 
comprised  in  the  following  statement. 

Two  'peculiarities  of  the  wool  manufacture  noticed.- — W e beg,  in  the  first 
place,  to  call  your  attention  to  two  essential  peculiarities  of  the  woolen 
manufacture,  especially  as  pursued  in  this  country,  distinguishing  it  from 
all  other  domestic  industries,  which  should  be  constantly  borne  in  mind  in 
determining  the  system  of  duties  applicable  to  this  manufacture.  These 
are,  first,  the  high  duty  on  the  raw  material,  from  which  the  most  impor  - 
tant of  our  other  textile  industries  are  exempt  ed  and  which  constitutes 
a more  important  element  in  the  cost  of  fabrication  than  in  any  other 
American  industry;  and,  secondly,  the  immensely  wide  scope  of  the 
wool  manufacture,  the  number  of  absolutely  distinct  branches,  greater 
than  in  any  other  general  industry,  the  infinity  of  fabrics,  styles,  and 
patterns  in  each  branch,  both  old,  and  so  perpetually  newly  introduced 
that  the  term  novelties  is  exclusively  applied  to  woolens ; the  variation 
of  prices  according  to  style,  fashion,  and  quality,  and  the  absence  of  great 
staple  and  ruling  fabrics,  such  as  are  found  in  the  cotton  industry- 
conditions  which  make  a general  system  of  duties  imperative,  and  a 
tariff  in  detail  impracticable — circumstances,  moreover,  which  must 
convince  you  of  the  absolute  impossibility  of  furnishing  the  elements  of 
the  cost  of  domestic  production  in  this  vast  range  of  fabrics  and  of 
prices,  as  a basis  for  the  imposition  of  duties. 

The  complications  exhibited  in  the  above  statement  have  caused  the 
construction  of  a proper  woolen  tariff  to  be  regarded  by  experts  as  the 
most  difficult  in  the  whole  range  of  our  revenue  laws.  And  to  the  solu- 
tion of  this  difficulty  the  highest  wisdom  within  our  industry,  and  of 
statesmanship  in  Congress,  has  been  directed.  Happily,  the  twopeculiari- 
ties  above  stated  have  caused  an  evolution,  or  gradual  attainment, 
through  the  experience  of  the  last  thirty  years,  of  certain  principles  of 
tariff  legislation  applicable  to  the  wool  manufacture,  which,  through 
their  universal  recognition  by  all  persons  engaged  in  the  wool  manu- 
facture or  in  wool-growing,  by  revenue  and  tariff  commissions,  and  by 
Congress,  have  become  completely  established,  so  far  as  anything  can 
be  by  authority,  as  fixed  and  scientific  principles  of  economical  legisla- 
tion. These  principles^  we  conceive,  must  be  constantly  recognized  in 


304  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

any  revision  of  the  tariff  contemplating  the  future  existence,  not  to  say 
prosperity,  of  the  wool  manufacture  in  this  country. 

These  observations,  as  well  as  the  earlier  portions  of  this  response, 
will  already  have  apprised  you  that  the  undersigned  contemplate  in 
their  recommendations  a preservation  of  the  essential  structure  of  the 
existing  woolen  tariff,  with  such  modifications  only  as  will  carry  out 
more  fully  the  recognized  principles  upon  which  it  is  based,  and  the 
correction  of  errors  and  ambiguities  of  language  inseparable  from  all 
legislation. 

The  undersigned  accordingly  recommend,  in  case  of  any  tariff  revis- 
ion, the  adoption  of  the  accompanying  schedule  of  duties  on  woolens 
(Appendix  A),  based  upon  the  existing  duties  on  wool,  and  proceed  to 
state  the  grounds  upon  which  such  schedule  is  recommended,  and  the 
changes  from  the  present  schedule  suggested  are  justified — uot  hesi- 
tating to  repeat  much  that  is  familiar  to  those  who  have  studied  the 
subject ; because  the  intimation  of  a revision  by  new  investigators  de 
mands,  as  we  conceive,  the  fullest  possible  reaffirmation  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  policy  which  we  approve. 

Foreign  manufacturers ’ advantages  from  free  wool. — It  is  necessary  for 
us  to  enlarge  somewhat  upon  a peculiarity  of  our  manufacture  before 
alluded  to:  namely,  its  subjection,  upon  grounds  of  public  policy,  to  a high 
duty  on  the  raw  material.  The  American  manufacturer  is  engaged  in 
a perpetual  struggle  with  the  manufacturers  of  Europe  for  the  posses- 
sion of  the  markets  of  this  country.  As  before  said,  the  advantages  of 
our  competitors  are  our  obstacles.  In  this  strife  the  European  manu- 
facturer possesses  the  advantage,  which  would  be  overwhelming  if  not 
counteracted  by  special  legislation,  of  having  the  raw  material  of  iiis 
manufacture  from  free  duty — no  duties  on  wool  existing  in  Great  Britain, 
France,  Belgium,  the  Netherlands,  and  very  slight  duties,  if  any,  in 
other  manufacturing  nations.  Our  European  competitors  are  exempt 
from  the  direct  enhancement,  by  a duty,  of  the  cost  of  wool,  thus  require 
ing  less  capital  to  supply  their  mills,  and  no  cost  of  interest  on  the 
duty  required  in  carrying  their  stocks  of  wool  and  goods.  They  ars 
free  from  the  apprehension  of  changes  in  the  value  of  wool,  such  a- 
have  taken  place  in  this  country  in  consequence  of  no  less  than  seven- 
teen changes  in  the  tariff  on  wools  within  the  memory  of  living  manu- 
facturers. They  are  exempt  from  the  duties  on  wool-substitutes,  so 
usefully  employed  to  mix  with  wool  in  the  manufacture  of  the  cheaper 
and  heavier  cloths — duties  which  with  us  are  absolutely  prohibitory. 
They  are  able,  from  the  lower  cost  of  their  raw  material,  to  relieve 
themselves  from  overproduction  by  consigning  th<  ir  surplus  stocks  at 
comparatively  slight  sacrifice  to  foreign  markets,  to  which  their  cheap- 
ness lias  already  introduced  them.  They  are  not  compelled,  as  we  are, 
to  discriminate  in  their  choice  of  wool  to  avoid  the  effect  of  the  duty, 
aud  are  able  to  select  their  wools  in  any  condition,  whether  unwashed, 
washed,  or  scoured,  with  reference  only  to  their  desirable  qualities. 
Through  freedom  of  importation  they  have  near  markets,  as  at  London, 
Havre,  Antwerp,  and  Berlin,  offering  vast  assortments  and  a steady 
supply  of  all  kinds  of  wool;  advantages  especially  favorable  to  the 
small  manufacturer.  This  exemption  Irom  all  restrictions  in  the  selec- 
tion of  raw  material,  together  with  the  facilities  for  supply  and  the  cer- 
taiuty  that  values  will  not  be  disturbed  by  legislation,  is  believed  to  be 
the  chief  cause  of  a characteristic  of  the  European  woolen  industry, 
namely,  that  the  manufacturer  abroad  obtains  success  by  adhering  with 
steady  attention  to  the  special  fabrics  he  has  undertaken  to  make,  aud 
in  which  he  has  acquired  excellence ; while  diversification  of  manufact- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


305 


ures,  so  necessary  to  prevent  overproduction,  is  encouraged  by  tbe 
equal  availability  of  all  varieties  and  conditions  of  raw  material.  Tbe 
effect  of  this  policy  upon  the  agricultural  interests  and  tbe  labor  of  tbe 
countries  which  adopt  it  we  are  not  at  present  called  upon  to  consider. 

Domestic  manufacturer s7  disadvantages.— On  tbe  other  band,  tbe  pro- 
tection to  wool  adopted  in  this  country,  upon  grounds  of  public  policy, 
involves  disadvantages  to  the  domestic  manufacture  which  would  be 
insuperable  if  not  neutralized  by  tbe  compensation  to  be  hereafter  re- 
ferred to.  In  making  a comparison  with  European  manufacturers,  it  is 
not  sufficient  to  consider  the  rates  of  duty  only,  but  the  expenses  at- 
tending the  importation  of  wool  from  the  great  wool  markets  of  the 
world,  from  which  the  foreign  manufacturer  is  exempt,  and  which  con- 
stitute an  additional  protection  to  the  wool-grower.  In  order  that  the 
existing  duties  of  wool  may  be  thoroughly  understood,  we  append 
(Appendix  B)  a table,  prepared  in  1884  by  wool  experts  in  whom  we 
have  entire  confidence,  exhibiting  the  prices  at  which  wools  of  all 
classes  could  then  be  bought  in  some  of  the  world’s  markets — and  the 
conditions  are  not  now  materially  changed — the  existing  duty  upon 
them,  the  cost  of  importation  (including  commissions)  from  the  port  of 
shipment  to  Boston,  the  total  cost  at  Boston,  the  ’percentage  of  duty 
upon  their  cost,  and  the  percentage  of  duty  and  cost  of  importation 
upon  their  cost.  Selecting  Class  I,  clothing  wools,  as  an  illustration, 
an  examination  of  this  table  will  show  that  on  Class  1,  unwashed  wool, 
the  duty  ranges  lrom  34.48  per  cent,  to  100  per  cent,  on  the  cost,  and 
that  the  duty  and  cost  of  importation  range  from  48.45  per  cent,  to 
117.80  per  cent,  on  the  cost. 

This  high  duty  is  not  the  only  difficulty  with  which  our  manufacturers 
requiring  foreign  wools  have  to  contend.  It  is  held  that  complete  pro- 
tection to  the  most  important  branch  of  our  wool-growing  industry,  the 
Merino  sheep  husbandry,  requires  that  washed  wools  in  Class  I should 
be  subject  to  double  the  duty  of  unwashed  wool,  and  the  duty  on 
scoured  wool  should  be  three  times  the  amount  upon  the  unwashed 
wools — an  arrangement  which  compels  the  importations  of  Class  I wools 
to  be  in  the  greasy  state,  necessitating  the  transportation  charges  on 
from  two  and  a quarter  to  three  pounds  of  grease  and  dirt  in  the  wool 
required  for  a pound  of  cloth.  The  effect  of  the  compulsion  to  buy 
greasy  wool  and  pay  a heavy  specific  duty  on  its  impurities  is  that  the 
American  manufacturer  is  thereby  obliged  to  give  undue  preference  to 
light  condition  over  fineness  and  the  other  valuable  qualities  of  wools 
offering  in  foreign  markets.  Our  manufacturers,  moreover,  are  obliged 
by  this  restriction  to  concentrate  their  competition  in  foreign  markets 
upon  the  always  small  proportion  of  the  lightest  unwashed  wools; 
while  our  foreign  competitors,  having  to  pay  duty  neither  upon  wool 
nor  on  grease  and  dirt,  can  buy  the  heavy  wools  in  the  market  to  much 
better  advantage. 

To  these  considerations  it  should  be  added  that  the  high  specific  duty 
on  clothing  wools,  a duty  irrespective  of  the  cost,  practically  excludes 
the  cheap  and  abundant  clothing  wools  of  South  America,  and  by 
freeing  them  from  our  competition  for  their  purchase  makes  them  much 
cheaper  than  they  would  otherwise  be  to  the  manufacturers  of  France, 
Belgium,  and  Germany,  who  work  them  up  into  cloths  and  stuffs  by  the 
cheapest  labor  in  Europe. 

Another  matter,  though  comparatively  of  less  importance,  should  not 
be  omitted.  The  classification  of  wools  under  each  class,  indispensable 
as  it  is  for  the  objects  aimed  at  in  the  wool  tariff,  is  subject  to  the  diffi- 
S.  Ex.  72- 20 


306  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

culty  of  excluding  the  doubtful  classes  of  wool,  or  those  on  the  uncer- 
tain line  of  division  between  two  classes,  however  desirable  and  valua- 
ble they  may  be — the  importer  being  unwilling  to  incur  the  risk  of  such 
wools  being  subjected  to  the  duty  of  the  higher  class.  This  is  another 
considerable  restriction  in  our  selection  of  imported  wools,  and  has  been 
a source  of  serious  loss  and  inconvenience  to  our  importing  manufact- 
urers. 

Necessity  for  counteracting  disadvantages . — It  will  be  seen  from  the 
above  that  we  are  subjected,  in  consequence  of  wool  duties  deemed  nec- 
essary for  the  protection  of  the  domestic  wool  industry,  not  only  to  an 
enhancement  of  the  cost  of  our  raw  material,  but  to  stringent  limitations 
in  choosing  the  best  sources  of  supply  for  our  various  wants — disad- 
vantages from  which  our  foreign  competitors  are  wholly  exempt,  and  to 
which  no  other  branch  of  domestic  industry  is  subjected  to  any  material 
extent.  We  dwell  upon  these  restrictions  and  limitations,  not  with  the 
object  of  urging  their  removal,  for  we  have  already  expressed  our  assent 
to  the  system  by  which  they  are  retained,  but  because  a frank  state- 
ment of  these  difficulties  is  required  to  show  the  indispensable  necessity 
of  neutralizing  them,  if  the  woolen  industry  is  to  be  preserved  in  this 
country  together  with  the  protection  to  wool,  which  public  policy  seems 
to  require  and  the  supremacy  of  agricultural  constituencies  makes  im- 
perative. These  conditions  require  to  be  fully  stated,  because  they  are 
not  generally  appreciated.  It  needs  to  be  better  known  that  the  admit- 
tedly high  duties,  and  on  a cursory  view,  unduly  high  duties  on  woolens, 
are  made  necessary  by  the  assumed  necessity  of  protecting  the  domestic 
wool-growers,  and  providing  for  them  a profitable  home  market ; and 
that  the  manufacturers,  exempted  from  the  wool  duties,  would  be  am- 
ply content  with  the  much  lower  range  of  duties  provided  for  other 
branches  of  the  textile  industry. 

Necessity  for  importations  of  wool. — It  may  be  said  that  a remedy  for 
these  difficulties  is  to  be  found  in  the  exclusive  use  of  the  domestic 
wools,  which  will  be  abundantly  supplied  under  due  protection.  To 
this  we  reply,  that  neither  our  own  country  nor  any  other  in  the  world 
does  or  can  produce  to  advantage  wools  of  all  kinds  and  grades.  Expe 
rience  under  high  protection  of  wool  in  this  country  for  over  thirty  years 
has  demonstrated  that  our  domestic  wool  growers  find  it  to  their  ad- 
vantage to  produce  only  the  staple  wools  required  for  the  ordinary  range 
of  woolen  fabrics  ; and  as  these  fabrics  will  al  ways  be  in  demand,  they 
build  up  their  flocks — a work  of  time — for  the  production  only  of  the 
fleeces  which  will  be  profitable  fora  long  series  of  years.  This  system, 
although  providing  admirable  raw  material  for  common  goods,  is  incom- 
patible with  the  variety  required  for  the  diversified  and  highly  advanced 
manufacture  which  should  be  our  aim.  The  American  manufacturer,  to 
compete  with  the  fabrics  of  other  nations  in  the  endless  variety  de- 
manded by  our  times,  must  have  the  power  of  selecting  a portion  of  his 
raw  material  from  all  the  world’s  sources  of  supply.  The  sudden  and 
exceptional  demand  for  more  or  new  raw  material  must  be  supplied  by 
importations.  By  none  was  this  necessity  more  fully  recognized  than 
by  the  eminent  wool-growers  who  assisted  in  1866-’67  in  framing  the 
substructure  of  the  present  wool  and  woolen  tariff ; and  they  united  with 
the  manufacturers  in  recommending  to  Congress  a policy  which  recon- 
ciled restriction  with  freedom,  by  giving  to  both  growers  and  manufact- 
urers what  was  regarded  as  adequate  protection,  and  to  the  manufact- 
urer the  utmost  freedom  to  import  raw  materials  consistent  with  pro- 
tection to  the  grower. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


307 


PRINCIPLES  OF  WOOLEN  TARIFF. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  consider  in  detail  the  principles* recognized  in 
the  legislation  respecting  wools  and  woolens  for  the  last  thirty  years, 
which  governed  the  tariff  of  1867,  are  substantially  observed  in  the  ex- 
isting tariff,  and  are  strictly  carried  out  in  the  accompanying  schedule, 
whose  adoption  is  recommended  in  case  of  tariff  revision. 

General  Garfield’s  statement. — The  most  compact  statement  of  these 
principles  is  that  made  by  General  Garfield,  in  a report  to  Congress,  in 
behalf  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  in  1880,  who  says: 

On  the  whole,  no  part  of  onr  tariff  system  has  been  more  amply  vindicated  by  ex- 
perience than  that  which  relates  to  wool  and  woolens.  * * * The  basis  of  that  leg- 
islation was  this:  That  upon  the  several  grades  of  imported  wool  a duty  should  be 
imposed  sufficient  to  promote  the  growth  of  sheep  husbandry  in  the  United  States. 
A specific  duty  was  then  imposed  on  woolen  goods  as  near  as  possible  equal  to  the 
wool  which  entered  into  theii  manufacture.  This  was  not  protection,  but  simply  an 
equivalent  duty  which  placed  the  woolen  manufacture  on  a free-trade  level.  To  this 
specific  duty  was  then  added  a duty  of  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  ou  woolen  goods,  as  a 
protection  to  the  manufacturer  against  foreign  competition. 

A more  detailed  statement  of  principles. — A fuller  statement,  however, 
is  required  for  those  who  may  reinvestigate  the  grounds  of  that  legis- 
lation, especially  as  such  statement  will  involve  an  answer  to  your  main 
interrogatory,  whether  a system  of  specific  duties,  simply,  may  not  be 
advantageously  substituted  for  the  compound  system  now  existing. 
The  fun  cement  al  principle  of  the  wool  tariff,  which  by  over  thirty 
years’  legislation  has  been  established  almost  as  an  economic  law,  is 
this:  The  wool  manufacturer  is  to  he  placed  in  the  same  position  as  if  he 
had  his  wool  aiyd  other  rate  material  free  of  duty , and  then  to  receive  sub- 
stantially the  same  measure  of  protection  accorded  to  other  industries.  The 
method  by  which  this  problem  is  solved  is  by  the  imposition  upon  woolen 
cloths  and  other  manufactures  of  wool  of  such  specific  duties  as  will  be 
sufficient  to  reimburse  the  manufacturer  for  the  amount  of  duty 
and  other  material  entering  into  such  manufactures,  and  the  amount 
paid  on  account  of  s'uch  duty.  The  protection  to  the  manufact- 
urer is  provided  by  an  ad  valorem  duty,  being,  with  slight  excep- 
tions, fixed  in  the  old  and  existing  tariff  as  35  per  cent. — these  two 
classes  of  duty,  the  specific  and  ad  valorem,  constituting  that  system  of 
compound  duties  which  is  held  to  be  the  only  one  that  can  be  effectually 
defensive  of  the  woolen  manufacture  or  is  consistent  with  protection  to 
wool. 

Elements  of  specific  duty. — To  determine  the  specific  duty  to  be  placed 
upon  woolen  manufactures  to  reimburse  the  duty  on  raw  material,  it  is 
necessary  to  ascertain,  (1)  the  number  of  pounds  of  wool  required  to 
make  a pound  of  finished  goods ; (2)  the  amount  of  duty  paid  ou  other 
material;  (3)  the  amount  paid  on  account  of  the  duty.  As  to  the  first 
point,  the  concurrent  estimates  of  manufacturers,  as  early  as  1861,  were 
that  an  average  of  4 pounds  of  foreign  unwashed  wool  are  required  to 
produce  one  pound  of  finished  woolen  goods.  Later  testimony,  to  be 
found  in  Appendix  C,  will  show  that  this  estimate  of  4 pounds,  instead 
of  being  too  high  is  not  high  enough  to  cover  a large  class  of  goods 
made  of  certain  classes  of  foreign  wools.  As  to  the  second  point,  the 
duties  on  drugs,  dyestuffs,  and  other  imported  material,  are  estimated, 
from  authentic  data,  at  an  average  of  2£  cents  to  the  pound  of  cloth. 
As  to  the  third  point — the  charges  and  expenses  in  consequence  of  the 
duty — these  are  recognized  to  consist  of  interest  for  six  months  on  the 


308  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

duty  on  the  raw  material,  from  the  time  of  its  purchase  until  the  sale  of 
the  finished  goods,  and  of  charges  for  commissions  on  sales  and  guar- 
antees, which  commissions  are  increased  in  amount  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  of  the  duty.  The  average  rate  of  these  commissions  is  esti- 
mated at  6J  per  cent.  The  two  items — of  interest  on  the  duty  of  the 
raw  materials,  for  six  months,  at  3J  per  cent.,  and  commissions  on  sales 
and  guarantees,  6J  per  cent.,  amount  to  10  per  cent. — which  should  be 
added  to  the  direct  duty  to  fully  reimburse  the  manufacturer.  This 
would  be  slightly  varied  according  to  the  rates  of  interest  varying 
from  time  to  time.  A longer  period  than  six  months  from  the  purchase 
of  his  raw  materials  is  now  required  by  the  manufacturer  to  secure 
returns. 

Evolution  of  system  of  compound  duties. — A brief  sketch  of  the  legisla- 
tion on  woolens  will  show  how  completely  the  principle  of  placing  the 
manufacturer  in  the  same  position  as  if  his  raw  material  were  free  of 
duty  has  been  incorporated  in  our  tariff  system. 

The  tariff  of  1846,  and  its  complement,  the  tariff  of  1857,  placing  an 
equal  ad  valorem  duty  on  wool  and  woolens,  and  therefore  giving  no 
compensatory  duty  to  the  manufacturer,  proved  ruinous  to  our  woolen 
industry,  and  finally  destructive  to  our  wool  production.  In  the  first 
revision  of  those  tariffs  by  friends  of  American  industry,  namely,  the 
framers  of  the  tariff  of  1861,  this  evil  was  corrected.  In  the  last  named 
tariff  the  duty  on  the  principal  competing  wool  was  fixed  at  3 cents  per 
pound.  The  framers  of  the  tariff,  recognizing  that  four  pounds  of  im- 
ported wool  are  required  to  make  a pound  of  finished  cloth,  Und  multi- 
plying the  wool  duty,  3 cents,  by  4,  placed  upon  woolen  cloth  and  other 
leading  classes  of  woolens  a specific  duty  of  12  cents,  with  an  addi 
tional  ad  valorem  duty.  In  1864  the  duties  on  wool  \tere  raised  to  6 
cents  per  pound;  and  this  duty  being  multiplied  by  4,  made  the  spe- 
cific duty  of  24  cents,  which  was  given  to  woolens,  besides  an  ad  valo 
rem  duty.  The  principle  of  reimbursement  by  the  specific  duty  and 
protection  by  the  ad  valorem,  though  applied  to  the  principal  classes 
of  woolen  goods,  however,  was  not  completely  carried  out  through  the 
whole  of  these  tariffs. 

In  1866  a still  further  increase  of  the  duty  on  wool  was  required  l>y 
the  agriculturists.  There  was  in  that  year  a consultation,  or  a series 
of  conferences  between  the  two  national  associations  of  wool  growers 
and  wool  manufacturers,  the  result  of  which  was,  that  the  essential 
features  of  the  tariff  of  1867  were  submitted  to  the  Revenue  Commis- 
sion of  1866,  were  by  that  Commission  recommended  to  Congress,  and 
became  a law  in  1867.  in  the  preparation  of  that  tariff  all  the  intellect 
and  knowledge  at  the  command  of  the  national  wool  industry  was 
brought  into  requisition.  The  duty  on  the  principal  competing  wools 
was  increased  to  10  cents  and  11  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  an  equivalent  of 
11J  cents  per  pound.  But  the  controlling  idea  in  the  preparation  of 
that  tariff  was  the  careful  adjustment  of  a compound  duty  for  woolens, 
so  that  the  specific  part  of  the  duty  should  be  as  strictly  as  possible 
compensatory  of  the  duty  on  the  wool  and  other  raw  material,  and  the 
ad  valorem  part  of  the  duty  should  give  protection,  and  the  same  rate 
of  protection  to  all  manufactures  of  wool.  In  other  words,  the  same 
principle,  partially  applied  in  the  tariffs  of  1861  and  1864,  was  applied 
to  all  possible  cases. 

Elements  of  duty  on  woolen  cloths. — The  theory  of  the  tariff  of  1867  is  • 
illustrated  by  its  application  to  the  principal  product  of  the  woolen  man- 
ufacture, “ woolen  cloth,  woolen  shawls,  &c.,w  under  the  tariff  of  1867. 


REVISION  or  THE  TARIFF. 


309 


The  duty  on  the  principal  competing  wool  entering  into  the  manufact- 
ure of  cloth  was  11J  cents  per  pound. 

Cents. 


The  duty  on  4 pounds  of  wool,  at  11£  cents,  was 46. 00 

Duty  on  drugs,  dye-stuffs,  &c.,  per  pound  of  cloth 2.  50 

Total  duty  on  raw  material 48. 50 

Charges  for  carrying  duty  at  10  per  cent,  on  same 4.  85 

Amount  of  reimbursing  or  specific  duty  required 53.  35 


For  convenience  and  easy  calculation,  Congress  deemed  it  expedient 
to  strike  off  the  3.35  cents,  and  to  fix  the  specific  duty  on  cloths  and 
the  principal  classes  of  woolen  goods  in  the  tariff  of  1867  at  the  round 
number  of  50  cents  per  pound.  The  ad  valorem  duty  on  cloths  and 
other  woolen  goods,  with  slight  exceptions,  was  fixed  at  35  per  cent. 

The  principal  point  of  congratulation  upon  the  completion  of  their 
work  by  the  framers  of  the  tariff  of  1867  was  that  here  was  a system 
which  would  remain  permanent,  no  matter  what  changes  might  be  de- 
manded in  the  course  of  legislation,  in  the  duties  on  wool,  or  the  de- 
gree of  protection  to  be  afforded  to  the  manufacturer.  If  the  duties  on 
wool  were  to  be  changed,  the  specific  duty  on  goods  could  be  lowered 
accordingly.  If  the  protection  to  the  manufacturer  were  to  be  dimin- 
ished or  increased,  it  would  be  only  necessary  to  raise  or  lower  the 
general  rate  of  the  ad  valorem  duty. 

Symmetry  disturbed  in  1883. — It  is,  as  we  conceive,  to  be  regretted — 
not  so  much  upon  practical  grounds  as  from  the  desirableness  that 
any  principle  of  legislation  once  adopted  as  just  and  wise  should  be 
undisturbed — that  in  the  tariff  of  1883  the  principles  governing  the 
proper  application  of  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties  to  woolen  manu- 
facturers were  not  strictly  adhered  to.  By  the  legislation  of  1883,  the 
duty  on  the  principal  competing  wool  was  placed  at  10  cents  per  pound, 
the  ad  valorem  provision  for  wool  in  the  old  law  being  omitted.  The 
reduction  still  left  to  the  wool  grower  a larger  average  protection  than 
the  manufacturer  received,  and  in  our  view,  upon  the  principles  above 
stated,  the  reduction  would  not  seem  to  have  justified  a correspond- 
ing reduction  in  the  manufacturers7  protective  or  ad  valorem  duty.  The 
strict  application  of  these  principles,  it  is  obvious,  required  only  a 
change  in  the  specific. duty  on  woolens  equivalent  to  the  reduced  duty 
on  wool.  A majority  of  the  Tariff  Commission,  whose  recommendations 
were  largely  followed  by  Congress,  were,  as  we  are  informed,  of  the 
opinion  that  a reduction  equal  to  that  on  wool  ought  to  be  made  both 
in  the  manufacturers7  ad  valorem  and  specific  duty.  The  Commission 
and  Congress,  however,  for  reasons  which  do  not  appear,  concluded 
upon  the  whole  to  leave  the  ad  valorem  duty  at  its  old  rate  of  35  per 
cent.,  and  to  apply  the  whole  reduction  in  woolens  proper,  which  would 
result  from  lowering  both  duties,  to  the  manufacturers7  specific  duties. 
The  specific  duties  in  the  present  law  were  reduced  from  50  cents  to  35 
cents,  while  to  place  the  manufacture,  according  to  the  theory  of  the 
system  agreed  upon  by  the  conferences  of  1866,  the  specific  duty  should 
have  been  left  at  46.75  cents.  This  will  appear  by  the  following  state- 


ment: 

Cents. 

Duty  on  4 pounds  of  wool  at  a duty  of  10  cents 40. 00 

Duty  on  drugs  and  dye-stuffs,  &c 2. 50 


Total  duty  on  raw  material 42. 50 

Charges  on  carrying  duties  at  10  per  cent 4. 25 


Amount  of  reimbursing  duties  required 46.75 

Amount  reduced  for  convenience  of  calculation 45. 00 


310  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

This  statement  is  made  not  with  the  purpose  of  urging  a change  in 
the  present  arrangement,  for  we  have  expressed  our  assent  to  it  as  long 
as  the  jjresent  duties  on  wool  continue  and  no  general  revision  of  the 
tariff  is  attempted.  We  make  the  statement  to  show,  first,  how,  in  case 
of  a general  revision,  the  symmetry  of  the  woolen  tariff  may  be  restored, 
and,  secondly,  to  show  how  largely  the  woolen  manufacturers  have  al- 
ready suffered  from  a reduction  of  the  equitable  duty  to  which  they  are 
entitled.  The  assumed  protection  to  the  wool  manufacture  of  35  per 
cent,  by  the, ad  valorem  duty  is  actually  reduced  to  the  full  extent  of  the 
deficiency  of  the  specific  duty,  11.75  cents,  making  it  considerably  less 
than  30  per  cent.  The  protection  is  still  further  reduced  by  the  underval- 
uations prevailing  to  such  an  extent  in  the  importation  of  woolen  goods, 
and  again  fully  2J  per  cent,  by  the  removal  of  the  duties  upon  charges 
and  commissions,  a reduction  to  which  wool  was  not  exposed,  as  in  the 
old  tariff  such  charges  did  not  enter  into  the  calculation  of  the  wool 
duties,  so  that  the  net  protection  actually  accruing  to  the  wool  manu- 
facture cannot  be  estimated  at  above  25  per  cent. 

Can  any  one  maintain  that  this  is  more  than  enough  to  equalize  the 
cost  of  our  production  with  that  of  our  foreign  competitors,  a cost,  as 
determined  by  average  earnings  in  Massachusetts,  shown  by  the  most 
recent  investigations  to  be  in  the  ratio  of  1.62  iu  this  country  to  1 in 
England,  having  the  best  paid  labor  in  Europe?*  Th6  slightness  of 
this  net  protection  is  more  apparent  when  it  is  remembered  that  our 
wool  manufacture  has  to  contend  with  the  oldest  and  most  widely  dif- 
fused industries  of  all  Europe  and  with  the  very  cheapest  labor  on  the 
continent,  and  that  it  is  subjected  to  caprices  of  fashion  requiring  fre- 
quent changes  of  machinery  and  losses  on  unfashionable  stocks  of  goods, 
while  its  requirements  for  enterprise,  skill,  and  taste  are  scarcely  equaled 
in  any  branch  of  manufacture  pursued  in  this  country. 

THE  SPECIFIC  AND  COMPOUND  SYSTEMS  OF  DUTIES  COMPARED. 

Although  our  general  opinion  as  to  the  preservation  of  the  existing 
system  of  compound  duties  applied  to  the  woolen  manufacture  may  be 
already  inferred,  your  circular  invites  us  to  give  our  u views  as  to  the 
feasibility  of  simplifying  the  tariff  and  making  the  duty  specific  so  far 
as  applicable  to  imported  articles  in  which  we  are  interested,  with  as 
full  information  upon  the  subject  as  we  may  be  pleased  to  submit.”  We 
will,  therefore,  consider  the  subject  in  more  detail,  first  stating  our  ob- 
jections to  the  adoption  of  a purely  specific  system,  and  then  adding 
some  further  reasons  for  the  preservation  of  the  existing  system. 

(1)  We  object  to  any  change  as  radical  as  that  suggested  would  be, 
because  we  believe  it  dangerous  to  disturb  a system  which  has  been  the 
gradual  growth  through  a long  series  of  years  from  the  necessities  and 
the  collective  wisdom  of  the  industries  concerned,  which  has  never  been 
objected  to  by  those  most  interested  in  its  operation,  and  to  which,  in  the 
confidence  of  its  permanency,  their  business  is  adjusted. 

(2)  We  regard  the  application  of  purely  specific  duties  to  woolen 
manufactures  as  impracticable  on  account  of  the  variety  of  fabrics  be- 
fore adverted  to,  and  the  impossibility  of  fixing  the  specific  duties  be 
forehand  upon  the  thousands  of  novelties  which  are  produced  every 
year  and  season  in  foreign  looms.  There  are,  besides,  so  many  different 

* The  general  average  weekly  wages  of  the  employes  in  twenty-four  industries  in 
Massachusetts  is  62+  per  cent,  higher  than  the  general  average  weekly  wages  of  the 
employes  iu  the  same  industries  iu  Great  Britain. — Report  of  Bureau  of  Statistics  of 
Labor  in  1885. 


REVISION  OE  THE  TARIFF. 


311 


branches  in  the  woolen  industry  as  distinct  from  each  other  as  the 
manufacture  of  wool  is  from  that  of  cotton  and  silk,  that  there  is  no 
man  or  body  of  men  sufficiently  expert  in  all  branches  and  competent 
to  indicate  the  various  duties  required  on  all  the  varieties  of  woolens, 
while  it  would  be  difficult  to  obtain  the  desirable  information  from  those 
specially  informed,  in  view  of  their  general  unwillingness  to  change  the 
present  system.  The  difficulty  of  adopting  and  applying  purely  spe- 
cific duties  to  woolen  manufactures  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  of  the 
many  custom-house  experts  examined  by  the  Tariff  Commission  and 
urging  a simplification  of  the  tariff,  no  one  dared  to  recommend  the 
application  of  purely  specific  duties  to  woolens  5 while  the  only  objec- 
tions made  by  such  experts  to  the  existing  system  were  to  the  specific 
part  of  the  compound  duty. 

(3)  The  rates  of  purely  specific  duties  must  be  determined  by  the  cost 
of  articles  at  the  time  when  they  are  imposed.  The  fluctuations  of  value 
in  woolen  manufactures  are  so  great,  and  there  are  such  facilities  for 
changing  the  cost  of  an  article  of  any  given  denomination,  that  what 
may  be  an  equitable  and  sufficient  duty  when  it  is  imposed  may  be  in- 
equitable and  insufficient  at  a future  period. 

(4)  Specific  duties  would  fail  to  provide  an  effectual  remedy  for  un- 
dervaluations of  imported  goods.  The  values  of  woolens  of  the  same 
denomination  vary  from  less  than  a dollar  to  several  dollars  per  yard. 
Specific  duties  approaching  to  justice — for  only  the  ad  valorem  duty  is 
absolutely  just,  though  not  always  expedient — must  be  adapted  to  dif- 
ferent values  of  woolens.  This  can  only  be  done  by  a series  of  mini- 
mum duties,  which  the  specific  system  necessarily  implies ; and  it  is 
well  known  that  the  most  flagrant  frauds  in  valuation  arise  from  the 
efforts  of  importers  to  place  their  goods  in  the  classes  subject  to  the 
lowest  specific  duty  in  the  minimum  clauses  of  the  tariff. 

(5)  It  is  intimated  that  the  object  of  a change  to  specific  duties  is  to 
“simplify  the  tariff.”  An  object  which  is  desirable  or  uot  accordingly 
as  it  assists  or  impairs  the  purposes  of  a tariff.  The  phrase  is  a popu- 
lar one  of  quite  uncertain  meaning.  If  the  simplicity  of  a tariff  means 
its  intelligibleness,  the  definiteness  of  its  principles,  and  the  clearness 
of  its  terms,  nothing  can  be  more  simple  than  the  present  system.  If 
it  means  brevity,  what  can  be  more  compact  than  the  existing  woolen 
schedule,  covering  the  duties  applicable  to  the  most  diverse  of  all  do- 
mestic industries  in  a little  more  than  a single  page  of  the  statute-book  ? 
If  it  means  facility  of  execution,  we  freely  admit  that  either  a pure  speci- 
fic or  ad  valorem  system  would  be  more  convenient  to  custom-house 
officials,  and  would  be  a slight  saving  of  time  and  labor  in  weighing, 
measuring,  and  calculating;  a consideration  so  trivial — affecting  the 
labor  of  probably  less  than  fifty  men — in  comparison  with  the  interests 
of  a great  national  industry  as  to  be  unworthy  of  any  regard.  The  tes- 
timony of  New  York  custom-house  experts  before  the  Tariff  Commission 
established  beyond  question  that  there  is  no  practical  difficulty,  except 
a slight  increase  of  labor,  in  the  execution  of  our  system  of  compound 
duties.  The  testimony  of  an  appraiser  at  Boston  of  high  character  and 
great  experience  is  so  distinct  upon  this  point  that  we  give  it  in  full. 
It  is  contained  in  a letter  addressed  to  a member  of  this  association,  as 
follows : 

Custom-House,  Boston  Appraiser’s  Office,  February  2, 1875. 
Henry  F.  Coe,  Esq.,  Treasurer: 

I have  yours  of  yesterday,  inquiring  if  we  have  found  any  difficulty  at  this  office  in 
working  under  the  present  tariff,  which  levies  a compound  duty  on  the  manufact- 
ures of  woolens.  In  answer  I can  say  that  in  my  long  experience  in  this  office, 


312  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


since  1861,  we  have  never  found  any  difficulty  in  working  under  the  laws,  either  in 
prompt  celerity  in  the  examination  and  reports  on  our  importation,  or  any  confusion 
in  the  rates  of  duty. 

Very  truly,  your  obedient  servant, 

R.  H.  DARRAH,  Appraiser. 


In  addition  to  the  reasons  already  given  for  retaining  the  present  sys- 
tem we  observe — 

(6)  It  is  of  the  highest  importance  for  the  interests  both  of  wool  pro- 
duction and  the  wool  manufacture  that  the  distinction  between  the 
compensatory  duty  and  the  protective  duty  to  the  manufacturer  should 
be  always  clearly  defined  and  preserved.  Under  systems  of  purely 
specific  or  purely  ad  valorem  duties  upon  wool  manufactures,  although 
it  might  be  originally  intended  to  include  the  compensatory  duty  on 
the  raw  material  in  the  rates  provided,  the  distinction  might  in  time  be 
lost  sight  of,  and  in  the  hasty  legislation  to  which  the  tariff  is  subjected 
on  the  floor  of  Congress,  with  the  liability  to  amendments,  there  might 
be  an  arbitrary  reduction  in  the  duties  on  woolens,  on  the  inconsider- 
ate view  that  the  whole  of  the  duty  is  a protection  to  the  manufacturer. 

(7)  The  compound  duty  qualifies  and  neutralizes  the  defects  of  the 
two  other  single  systems.  The  ad  valorem  part,  on  the  one  hand,  re- 
lieves the  inequalities  of  the  pure  specific  system,  which  makes  the  duty 
too  low  on  goods  of  high  value,  and  too  high  on  goods  of  low  value,  and 
the  abruptness  of  transition  in  the  minimum  clauses  from  low  to  high 
duties  on  goods  but  slightly  differing  in  value.  The  specific  part,  on 
the  other  hand,  partially  corrects  the  undervaluations  prevailing  under 
a pure  ad  valorem  system,  and  in  cases  of  a general  decline  of  prices 
abroad,  when  the  pure  ad  valorem  duties  cease  to  be  protective,  pre- 
vents the  duty  from  falling  so  low  as  to  admit  the  unobstructed  flow  of 
European  surpluses  into  this  country.  In  other  words,  the  compound 
duty  makes  a more  effectual  barrier  against  the  foreign  goods,  which 
would  break  down  our  markets,  than  either  the  specific  or  ad  valorem 
system  would  be  alone. 

(8)  The  compound  duty,  by  the  preponderating  operation  of  the  spe- 
cific part  of  the  duty  at  one  time,  and  of  the  ad  valorem  part  at  an- 
other time,  equally  protects  the  same  manufacturer  at  different  seasons 
of  the  year.  The  greater  part  of  our  cloth  mills  in  summer  make  heavy 
goods  for  wear  in  the  next  winter,  and  light-weight  goods  in  winter  for 
the  next  summer’s  wear.  The  heavy  goods  weighing  16  to  24  ounces 
per  square  yard  derive  their  chief  protection  from  specific  or  pound 
duty  on  competing  foreign  cloths.  The  light-weight  goods  for  summer 
wear,  weighing  but  a few  ounces  to  the  square  yard,  are  chiefly  pro- 
tected by  the  ad  valorem  part  of  the  compound  duty.  Thus  both  sys- 
tems of  duties  secured  by  the  compound  system  are  required  at  differ- 
ent seasons  for  the  defense  of  the  manufacturer  in  the  same  mill. 

(9)  Except  a slight  increase  of  labor  to  custom-house  officials,  there 
is  absolutely  no  argument  for  the  abolition  of  compound  duties  in  the 
woolen  schedule,  except  merely  theoretical  opinions,  or  opinions  formed 
without  experience.  In  favor  of  the  continuanceof  the  present  system 
we  have  the  fact  that  it  has  stood  for  over  thirty  years  without  objec- 
tion, except  from  officials  desiring  an  easier  system  of  computing  duties, 
and  from  those  opposed  to  all  protective  duties.  The  present  system  is 
recommended  by  the  highest  legislative  authorities,  by  the  indorse- 
ment of  the  Revenue  Commission  of  1866,  by  the  final  judgment,  after 
full  discussion,  of  the  Tariff  Commission  of  1882,  by  the  adoption  of  the 
system,  directly  from  our  own,  by  the  Dominion  of  Canada  in  a recent 
revision  of  its  tariff,  and  finally  by  the  practical  manufacturers  them- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  313 

selves,  who  ought  to  be  the  best  judges  of  their  own  interests,  if  those 
interests  are  to  have  any  weight  in  legislation. 

THE  WOOLEN  TARIFF  CLAUSES  SEPARATELY  CONSIDERED. 

Proceeding  with  our  explanation  of  the  principles  substantially  gov- 
erning the  provisions  of  the  existing  woolen  tariff,  the  main  structure 
of  which  we  approve,  it  is  proper  that  we  should  consider  these  provis- 
ions consecutively  and  separately,  suggesting  the  changes  which,  in 
our  opinion,  should  be  made  to  bring  the  provisions  more  strictly  in 
conformity  with  the  principles  recognized  by  the  original  framers  of 
the  system  as  correct. 

The  cloth  clause. — The  first  and  most  important  clause  of  the  woolen 
schedule,  paragraph  362,*  relates  to  “ woolen  cloths,  woolen  shawls,  and 
all  manufactures  of  wool  of  every  description”  not  specially  enumerated 
in  the  act.  The  elements  of  the  specific  duty  applied  in  this  paragraph 
have  already  been  stated.  This  clause  covers  the  most  important  de- 
partment of  the  woolen  manufacture,  the  fabrication  of  “cloths”  fur- 
nishing at  least  nine-tenths  of  the  clothing  of  our  male  population  and 
being  the  most  widely  diffused  of  all  our  textile  industries.  Partly  on 
account  of  the  national  importance  of  this  manufacture,  and  its  necessity 
to  the  wool-grower  as  furnishing  the  principal  market  for  his  wools,  the 
specific  duty  was  made  to  apply  to  all  kinds  of  cloth,  irrespective  of 
their  cost,  the  quantity  of  wool  which  they  contained,  or  the  methods 
of  their  fabrication.  The  lower  duties  in  proportion  to  ther  foreign  cost, 
as  provided  in  other  portions  of  the  schedule,  were  also  expressly  ex- 
cluded from  cloths,  for  the  purpose  of  shutting  out  the  foreign  cheap, 
low  goods  composed  of  wool  substitutes,  such  as  shoddy,  waste,  &c.,  so 
extensively  manufactured  in  England  for  foreign  export.  This  exclu- 
sion of  the  lower  duties  was,  besides,  a measure  of  simple  justice,  as 
the  duties  imposed  by  our  tariff  on  wool  substitutes  is  prohibitory.  The 
foreign  shoddy  goods  of  very  considerable  weight  and  of  but  a shilling 
or  two  in  value  are  those  upon  which  the  duty  is  declared  to  be  over 
100  per  cent.  The  duty  was  intended  to  be  prohibitory  of  such  goods, 
for  their  exclusion  by  the  high  pound  duty  was  held  to  be  a public 
benefit. 

The  high  specific  duty  has  operated  also  to  encourage  the  production 
of  a higher  but  comparatively  low  class  of  domestic  goods,  such  as  enter 
into  the  consumption  of  the  masses.  More  than  nine-tenths  of  the 
cloths  worked  up  in  our  vast  ready  -made  clothing  establishments  are  of 
this  class.  They  are  made  of  our  sound  American  wool,  have  admirable 
wearing  qualities,  and,  considering  their  more  serviceable  character, 
are  practically  as  cheap  as  foreign  cloths  are  to  their  buyers  abroad. 
The  prosperity,  such  as  it  has  been,  of  the  great  bulk  of  our  common 
woolen  mills  is  attributed  by  all  well-informed  men  to  the  effect  of  the 
specific  duty  in  excluding  the  heavier  competing  foreign  cloths,  while 
the  increased  domestic  production,  resulting  from  the  command  of  our 
home  market,  has  caused  the  cheapening  process,  through  improved 
methods  of  manufacture  and  competition,  to  be  most  conspicuous  in  the 
lower  and  medium  goods  of  most  general  consumption. 

Worsted  cloths. — We  cannot  doubt  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the 
framers  of  this  clause  to  include  all  cloths,  irrespective  of  the  method 
of  their  fabrication,  composed  in  whole  or  in  part  of  wool.  We  conceive 
that  the  emphatic  and  distinctive  word  in  this  clause  is  not  woolen , but 


* The  numbering  of  the  paragraphs  is  from  Heyl’s  Digest  of  1884. 


314  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

cloth , as  distinguished  from  all  textures  subsequently  enumerated  in  the 
schedule.  We  conceive  that  the  term  cloths  is  used  in  its  popular  and 
commercial  sense,  namely,  a fabric  of  icool,  finished  and  close  ; as  distin- 
guished from  a flannel  of  comparative  thickness ; as  distinguished  from  a 
woolen  stuff,  adapted  for  the  garments  ordinarily  made  up  by  the  tailor  or 
clothier.  Therefore  we  conceive  that,  by  the  strict  terms  and  manifest 
intent  of  this  clause,  the  class  of  cloths  commonly  known  as  worsted  coat- 
ings are  included  therein.  The  latter-named  cloths  are  erroneously,  as 
we  think,  classified  by  the  appraisers  of  our  custom-houses  not  as  cloths, 
but  as  manufactures  of  worsted,  whereby  they  are  subjected  to  lower 
rates  than  the  law  framers  contemplated.*  Although  it  is  hoped  that  this 
erroneous  classification  may  be  corrected  by  your  instructions,  we  have 
inserted  in  the  schedule  which  we  recommend  in  case  of  a general  re- 
vision, the  word  u worsted,”  after  “ woolen,”  so  that  that  provision  shall 
apply  equally  to  worsted  and  woolen  cloths. 

In  the  present  law  the  specific  duty  in  this  clause  is  placed  at  35  cents. 
We  have  already  shown  that  this  sum  is  not  sufficient,  according  to  the 
admitted  principles  of  the  law,  to  compensate  for  the  duties  on  the  raw 
material,  and  in  the  schedule  recommended  in  case  of  revision,  have 
placed  the  specific  duty  in  this  clause  at  the  round  sum  of  45  cents, 
which  nearly  covers  all  the  elements  of  a proper  specific  duty. 

The  ad  valorem  duty. — The  ad  valorem  duty  in  this  clause,  applicable 
to  the  great  bulk  of  goods  produced,  is  placed  at  35  per  cent.,  a rate 
less  than  the  general  rate  imposed  in  the  other  textile  schedules.  Un- 
der the  tariff  of  1867  this  rate  was  imposed  upon  all  goods  coming 
under  this  clause,  without  respect  to  their  cost.  The  framers  of  the 
tariff  of  1883  deemed  it  proper,  in  order  to  preserve  u the  scale  of  jus- 
tice,” to  place  a higher  ad  valorem  duty  on  the  more  costly  goods  re 
quiring  more  labor  in  their  production,  and  imposed  upon  goods  val- 
ued at  above  80  cents  per  pound  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  40  per  cent. — 
experience  having  shown  that  it  was  for  the  public  interest  that  the 
proportion  of  the  production  of  the  finer  goods  should  be  increased  by 
higher  protective  duties.  The  propriety  of  a higher  duty  for  the  finer 
and  more  highly  finished  goods  was  recognized  in  a “ conference”  of 
the  representatives  of  the  National  Associations  of  Wool  Growers  and 
Wool  Manufacturers  at  Washington,  February  23,  1878,  and  the  prin- 
ciple is  applied  in  the  schedule  of  flax,  cotton,  and  silk. 

The  miscellaneous  woolen  clause. — The  next  clause,  paragraph  363,  re- 
lates to  the  next  important  group  of  woolen  manufactures.  We  have 
caused  this  clause  to  be  presented  below  in  such  a manner  that  the 
changes  made  in  1883  from  the  old  law  may  be  seen  at  a glance  ; and 
call  attention  to  the  points,  that  the  use  of  common  type  signifies  that 
the  language  is  the  same  in  the  former  as  in  the  new  law  ; of  italics, 
that  the  language  is  that  of  the  new  law  alone ; of  type  inclosed  in 
brackets,  that  the  language  is  that  of  the  former  law  alone,  and  there- 
fore not  to  be  read  as  part  of  the  new  law. 

363.  Flannels,  blankets,  hats  of  wool,  knit-goods,  and.  all  goods  made  on  knitting- 
frames,  balmorals,  woolen  and  worsted  yarns,  and  all  manufactures  of  every  de- 
scription, composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or 
other  [like]  animals  (except  such  as  are  composed  in  part  of  wool),  not  specialljf  enu- 
merated or  [otherwise]  provided  for  in  this  act , valued  at  not  exceeding  thirty  [forty] 
cents  per  pound,  ten  [twenty]  cents  per  pound;  valued  at  above  thirty  cents  per  pound, 
and  not  exceeding  forty  cents  per  pound,  twelve  cents  per  pound ; valued  at  above  forty 
cents  per  pound,  and  not  exceeding  sixty  cents  per  pound,  eighteen  [thirty]  cents  per 

* For  fuller  views  upon  this  poiut  we  refer  to  “ an  argument  for  the  classification  of 
worsted  cloths,  addressed  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ” by  the  secretary  of  this 
association. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


315 


pound;  valued  at  above  sixty  cents  per  pound,  and  not  exceeding  eighty  cents  per 
pound,  [forty]  twenty-four  cents  per  pound  ; and  in  addition  thereto , upon  all  the  above 
named  articles , thirty-five  per  centum  advalorem ; valued  at  above  eighty  cents  per 
pound,  thirty  five  [fifty]  cents  per  pound,  and  in  addition  thereto  [upon  all  the  above- 
named  articles,  thirty-five]  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

In  the  tariff  of  1867,  where  the  principles  determining  the  proper 
specific  duty  were  carried  out  as  strictly  as  was  practicable,  the  specific 
duties  applicable  to  the  above-named  articles  were  determined  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  specific  duty  on  cloths.  Upon  grounds  of  public 
policy  before  stated,  it  was  deemed  proper  to  assume  that  all  cloths 
were  wholly  composed  of  wool  paying  the  highest  duty.  It  was  not 
deemed  necessary  to  make  this  assumption  in  the  articles  mentioned 
in  this  clause,  as  shoddy,  mungo,  and  waste  enter  but  slightly  into  their 
fabrication,  and  within  the  valuations  provided,  not  at  all.  Therefore, 
for  these  articles  there  was  provided  a system  of  minimums,  or  a series 
of  the  lowest  valuations  to  which  certain  specific  duties  could  be  applied 
to  given  ranges  of  goods,  for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  the  specific  duties,  as 
nearly  as  practicable,  to  the  proportions  of  wool  in  the  articles  enumer- 
ated, and  the  wool  duties  on  the  same,  in  order  that  the  specific  duties 
on  the  goods  might  be  as  nearly  as  possible  compensatory  for  the  duties 
on  the  raw  material. 

The  highest  minimum  was  placed  at  80  cents  per  pound.  It  was  cor- 
rectly held  that  the  goods,  such  as  flannels,  blankets,  knit-goods,  &c., 
costing  above  this  value  must  be  composed  of  clothing- wool,  paying 
then  a specific  duty  of  11J  cents  per  pound,  and  requiring  four  pounds 
of  wool  to  the  pound  of  finished  goods.  The  reimbursing  specific  duty 
on  these  goods  was  therefore  correctly  fixed  at  50  cents,  this  being  the 
substitute  accepted  for  convenience  of  calculation,  for  53.35  cents,  which 
would  have  been  the  exact  amount  of  the  reimbursing  duty  required. 
As  the  valuation  of  the  goods  diminished  it  was  supposed  that  the 
proportions  of  cotton  mixed  with  the  wool,  or  of  wool  paying  the  high- 
est duty  increased,  and  the  specific  duties  were  proportionately  di- 
minished. 

Notwithstanding  the  sound  objections  made  to  the  system  of  mini- 
mums, that  they  are  unequal  in  their  operation  between  the  different 
points  of  valuation,  and  that  they  afford  a temptation  to  the  importer  to 
invoice  his  goods  at  a lower  price  than  those  of  the  class  to  which  they 
properly  belong,  it  was  held  that  this  system  was  the  only  one  which 
could  be  devised  to  meet  the  object  sought  for,  the  adjusting  of  the  du- 
ties on  woolen  manufactures  approximately  to  the  duties  paid  on  the 
raw  material.  To  meet  the  objections  above  made  to  the  minimum  sys- 
tem it  was  held  necessary  to  place  the  valuations  sufficiently  high  to 
give  the  limitation  intended,  and  it  was  also  held  that  it  was  necessary 
that  the  specific  duties  applicable  to  each  valuation  should  be  sufficient- 
ly high  to  neutralize  the  disadvantages  to  which  certain  manufactures 
included  in  this  clause  are  subjected — the  knit-goods  manufacture,  for 
instance,  which  requires  fuller  compensation  by  specific  duties,  as  the 
waste  in  hosiery  goods,  from  cutting,  trimming,  and  fitting,  is  greater 
than  in  other  woolen  fabrics,  while  there  is  a large  consumption  of  trim- 
mings of  silk,  &c.,  on  which  the  highest  duties  are  paid. 

It  will  be  seen  by  a comparison  of  the  figures  in  italics  with  those  in 
brackets  in  the  above  presentation  of  paragraph  363  that  by  the  legisla- 
tion of  1883  the  symmetry  of  the  original  clause  was  disturbed  by  arbi- 
trary and,  as  we  venture  to  think,  unwarranted  reductions,  in  which 
the  objects  of  the  framers  of  this  tariff  were  nearly  lost  sight  of. 

These  reductions,  under  an  erroneous  classification  for  duty,  were 


316  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


especially  injurious  to  our  worsted-clotli  manufacture  in  the  year  follow- 
ing the  tariff  of  1883 — there  having  been  in  that  year  an  increased  im- 
portation of  worsted  coatings  from  the  consular  district  of  Bradford  to 
the  extent  of  147.8  per  cent.  Of  this  boon  to  British  trade  the  u Brad- 
ford Observer”  declares  that  “ this  increase  of  exports  is  owing  princi- 
pally to  the  reductions  of  tariff  in  the  United  States,  which  took  place 
on  the  first  of  July,  1883;”  a fact  which  shows  how  vitally  dangerous 
an  apparently  slight  reduction  of  duty  may  be  to  industries  just  pre- 
serving their  equilibrium  against  the  pressure  of  foreign  competition. 

The  original  arrangement  of  the  specific  duties  in  this  clause,  founded 
on  the  old  duties  on  wool,  having  been  recognized  as  correct,  all  the 
reductions  of  specific  duties  in  this  clause,  to  preserve  the  old  sym- 
metry, should  have  been  exactly  proportioned  to  the  reduced  duty  on 
wool ; that  is  if,  as  we  have  shown,  the  reduced  duty  on  wool  required 
on  goods  of  the  highest  value  a specific  duty  of  45  cents  in  place  of  the 
old  duty  of  50  cents,  the  ratio  of  45  cents  to  50  cents  should  have  been 
preserved  in  the  reductions  of  the  other  specific  duties.  The  next  lower 
specific  duty  in  the  old  tariff  was  40  cents.  In  the  new  tariff,  to  make 
it  consistent  with  the  old,  it  should  have  been  fixed  at  36  cents,  whereas 
it  was  placed  at  24  cents.  And  in  the  next  lower  valuation,  where  the 
proper  reduction  would  have  been  to  27  cents,  it  is  made  18  cents.  All 
the  specific  duties  in  this  clause  were  in  like  manner  irregularly  and 
arbitrarily  changed,  and  unduly,  as  we  think,  reduced.  We  have,  there- 
fore, in  the  schedule  recommended,  in  case  of  revision,  made  all  the 
specific  duties  in  this  clause,  with  the  exception  of  the  two  lowest  valu- 
ations, proportionate  to  the  reduced  duty  on  wool. 

Bunting  clause. — Paragraph  364.  The  duties  on  bunting — namely,  10 
cents  per  square  yard  (reduced  from  20  cents),  and  in  addition  thereto 
35  per  centum  ad  valorem,  it  is  understood  were  fixed  without  reference 
to  the  duties  on  wool,  and  were  influenced  by  the  patriotic  desire  to 
have  them  high  enough  to  cause  the  material  for  our  national  flags  to 
be  of  American  production.  No  change,  in  case  of  revision,  is  recom- 
mended in  the  existing  duty. 

Dress-goods  clause. — Paragraph  365.  Women’s  and  children’s  dress-goods,  coat- 
linings , [and  real  or  imitation]  Italian  cloths,  and  goods  of  like  description,  composed 
[wholly  or]  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  [like]  ani- 
mals, valued  at  not  exceeding  twenty  cents  per  square  yard,  five[  six]  cents  per  square 
yard,  and  in  addition  thereto,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem ; valued  at  above 
twenty  cents  per  [the]  square  yard,  seven  [eight]  cents  per  square  yard,  and  [in  ad- 
dition thereto]  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem ; if  composed  wholly  of  wool , worsted,  the 
hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  or  of  a mixture  of  them,  nine  cents  per  square 
yard,  and  forty  per  centum  ael  valorem,  hut  all  such  goods  with  selvedges,  made  wholly  or  in 
part  of  other  materials,  or  with  threads  of  other  materials  introduced  for  the  purpose  of 
changing  the  classification,  shall  be  dutiable  at  nine  cents  per  square  yard,  and  forty  per 
centum  ad  valorem  : Provided,  That  all  such  [But  on  all]  goods  weighing  over  four  ounces 
[and  over]  per  square  yard,  shall  pay  a [the]  duty  of  [shall  he  fifty]  thirty-five  cents 
per  pound  and  [in  addition  thereto]  forty  [thirty-five]  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

This  paragraph  in  the  present  tariff  has  reference  to  two  classes  of 
fabrics — the  first  part  to  dress-goods,  with  cotton  warps,  and  the  second 
part,  printed  in  italics,  to  all-wool  dress  goods,  the  latter  clause  not  ex- 
isting in  the  old  tariff. 

The  duties  upon  cotton-warp  dress-goods  under  the  tariff  of  1867,  as 
well  as  in  the  present  tariff,  had  reference  chiefly  to  the  goods  compet- 
ing with  the  cotton-warp  dress-goods  which  constitute  the  principal 
production  of  the  great  worsted-mills  of  this  country.  The  specific  du- 
ties were  strictly  adjusted  in  the  main  so  as  to  no  more  than  cover  the 
duties  on  the  wool  in  the  wool  part  of  the  goods,  and  the  duty  on  im- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


317 


ported  materials,  dyestuffs,  &c.,  in  the  cotton  part  of  the  goods.*  So 
accurate  and  fair  were  these  adjustments  considered  by  the  Tariff  Com- 
mission and  Congress  that  in  the  revision  of  1883  they  reduced  the  spe- 
cific duties  on  these  goods  only  1 cent,  per  square  yard — a reduction 
quite  fairly  proportioned  to  the  reduction  of  the  duty  on  the  wool. 
We  therefore  recommend  no  change  in  the  duties  applicable  to  the  cot- 
ton-warp dress-goods  in  case  of  a revision. 

The  only  change  which  we  recommend  in  this  paragraph,  so  far  as  it 
is  applicable  to  cotton  warp  goods,  relates  to  the  concluding  proviso. 
This  proviso  has  been  held  (incorrectly,  as  we  think)  at  the  Treasury 
Department  to  apply  only  to  the  all-wool  dress  goods — a construction 
which  certainly  was  not  contemplated  by  the  framers  of  the  law.  The 
proviso  as  to  goods  weighing  4 ounces  per  square  yard  was  made  to 
prevent  cloakings  and  heavy  goods,  which  should  pay  duty  as  cloth, 
coming  in  at  a less  duty,  as  dress-goods,  because  adapted  to  women’s 
and  children’s  wear,  and  should  be  clearly  applicable  to  cotton-warp 
goods,  as  it  was  in  the  old  law.  We  recommend  such  a change  in  the 
phraseology  as  shall  accomplish,  beyond  all  doubt,  the  original  object 
of  the  proviso. 

All-wool  dr  ess- goods  clause. — In  regard  to  the  all-wool  dress- goods 
clause,  of  the  paragraph  under  discussion,  we  regard  the  specific  duty 
of  9 cents  per  square  yard  imposed  as  inadequate,  and  inconsistent  with 
the  theory  of  the  woolen  tariff — that  the  specific  duty  should  be  amply 
compensatory  of  duty  on  the  raw  material. 

At  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  of  1867  the  possibility  of 
making  this  class  of  goods  in  this  country  was  not  contemplated,  be- 
cause at  that  time  the  English  had  not  succeeded  in  their  manufacture, 
and  our  object  was  to  make  what  were  known  as  “Bradford”  or  cotton- 
warped  goods.  The  same  rate  of  specific  duty  was  therefore  given  to 
all-wool  dress  goods  as  to  cotton- warp  goods,  the  duty  upon  the  former 
being  about  31  \ per  cent,  less  than  was  imposed  upon  woolen  cloths. 
This  branch  of  the  woolen  industry  was  consequently  neglected,  which 
caused  a large  and  constantly-increasing  importation  of  such  goods. 
The  legislation  of  1883,  although  contemplating  the  production  of  these 
goods,  provided  an  insufficient,  compensating  specific  duty,  as  will  ap- 
pear from  the  following  statement: 

This  class  of  goods  can  be  made  only  from  the  best  merino  combing- 
wools,  which  pay  the  highest  rate  of  duty,  namely,  12  cents  per  pound. 
Four  pounds  of  wool  are  required  for  one  pound  of  goods.  This  re- 
quires the  manufacturer  to  pay  out  for  duty  on  the  wool  48  cents  for 
every  pound  of  such  goods  made  by  him,  while  he  also  has  to  pay  for 
duty  on  dye-stuffs  and  charges  on  account  of  duty  the  further  sum  of 
7.5  cents — a total  of  55.5  cents. 

At  12  cents  specific  duty  to  the  square  yard,  as  recommended  by  the 
Tariff  Commission,  the  compensatory  duty  which  the  manufacturer 
would  receive  would  be — 

Rate  per  pound. 


On  goods  weighing  3|  oz.  per  square  yard 54. 86  cents. 

On  goods  weighing  4 oz.  per  square  yard 48. 00  cents. 


* The  accuracy  with  which  this  adjustment  was  made  is  thus  illustrated:  The  wool 
part  of  the  ordinary  goods  was  equivalent  to  one  pound  for  10  square  yards;  53  cents, 
the  equivalent  of  the  duty,  charges,  &c.,  on  the  pound  of  wool,  is  equal  to  5.3  cents 
per  square  yard,  which  sum  was  exactly  compensatory  of  tho  duty  on  the  wool  part 
of  the  goods  ; so  to  this  was  added  the  duty  on  the  imported  materials  used  in  the 
cotton  part  of  the  goods,  at  least  .7  of  a cent.  So  that  the  duty  of  6 cents  was 
barely  sufficient  to  reimburse  the  amount  paid  on  duties  and  charges  on  raw  materials. 


318  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Therefore,  the  rate  of  12  cents  per  square  yard  would  be  really  insuf- 
ficient to  reimburse  the  duty  paid  by  the  manufacturer  on  and  on  ac- 
count of  the  raw  material.  Nevertheless,  we  do  not  propose  a higher 
rate  than  this  sum  in  the  schedule  recommended,  in  case  of  a general 
revision. 

A consideration  which  influenced  the  legislation  of  1883  and  caused 
the  slightness  of  reduction  applied  to  the  principal  class  in  this  para- 
graph should  always  be  kept  in  view.  This  is,  that  the  domestic  in  - 
dustry engaged  in  the  production  of  these  goods  is  subjected  to  a heav- 
ier foreign  competition  than  any  other  in  our  whole  industry — forty  mil- 
lions of  square  yards  of  domestic  production  in  1880  struggling  against 
ninety  millions  of  square  yards  of  foreign  production,  and  competing 
with  a foreign  industry  abroad  which  employs  in  England  and  France 
more  capital  and  labor  than  in  all  other  branches  of  the  woolen  interest. 

The  made-lip  clothing  clauses. — The  two  paragraphs  366  and  367  cover 
ready  made  clothing  and  wearing  apparel,  except  knit  goods.  They  are 
the  defenses  of  the  clothing  manufacture,  which  is  the  culmination  of 
the  wool  industry — the  last  of  the  series  of  manipulations,  commencing 
with  the  shearing  of  the  sheep  and  ending  in  the  finished  garment;  and 
sending  its  products  directly  to  the  farmer,  it  completes  the  circuit  of 
exchanges  in  the  wool  industry.  The  national  legislation  for  this  in- 
terest is  therefore  quite  fitly  made  a part  of  the  wool  and  woolen  tariff. 
A sufficient  defense  to  this  manufacture  is  of  especial  interest  to  the 
wool  manufacturers  proper,  as  this  industry  furnishes  them  the  most 
important  of  their  customers. 

Paragraph  366  relates  to  the  clothing  manufacture  in  general.  It  is 
obvious  that  at  least  as  high  a specific  duty  should  be  placed  upon 
clothing  as  upon  cloth,  as  the  maker  of  such  clothing  is  compelled  to 
pay  the  whole  amount  of  the  increased  duty  on  cloth  consequent  upon 
the  duty  on  clothing- wool.  Theoretically,  a higher  ad  valorem  duty  is 
required  for  clothing  on  account  of  the  increased  and  high  cost  of  skilled 
labor  in  the  manufacture,  and  the  great  loss  of  material  in  cutting  and 
fitting.  In  the  present  tariff  the  specific  duty  is  made  five  cents  higher 
than  on  cloth,  and  the  ad  valorem  rate  lower  than  on  high-priced  cloths. 
In  the  schedule  recommended,  in  case  of  revision,  we  have  made  the 
specific  duty  the  same  as  that  recommended  for  cloth,  and  the  ad  valo- 
rem rate  5 per  cent,  higher  than  the  highest  rate  on  cloths. 

Paragraph  367  relates  to  “outside  garments  for  ladies  and  children’s 
apparel,”  the  fabrication  of  which  gives  extensive  employment  in  our 
principal  cities  to  a necessitous  class  of  female  labor.  The  manufacture 
in  this  country  has  of  late  been  exposed  to  an  oppressive  foreign  com- 
petition, which  is  especially  facilitated  by  the  large  quantity  of  silk, 
laces,  and  trimmings  entering  into  the  fabrication  of  these  articles,  upon 
which  the  foreigner  pays  no  duty,  while  the  domestic  manufacturer  is 
subjected  to  the  highest  range  of  duties. 

The  present  tariff  recognizes  this  difficulty  by  imposing  upon  these 
articles  a specific  duty  of  45  cents,  and  in  addition  thereto  45  per  cent- 
um. The  ad  valorem  rate  in  this  clause  should  be  also  5 per  cent,  higher 
than  the  highest  rate  upon  cloths. 

The  Small-  Wares  Clause. — Paragraph  368  inches  the  smaller  miscel- 
laneous and  multitudinous  articles  composed  of  wool  or  worsted  which 
in  France  are  known  as  “ passementerie ,”  and  in  this  country  as  “small 
wares.”  Their  production  involves  a greater  proportion  of  labor  and  a 
greater  amount  of  skilled  labor  than  any  other  class  of  wool  manufact- 
ures. As,  in  the  articles  referred  to  in  the  last  paragraph,  materials  of 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


319 


of  silk  and  other  articles  paying  the  highest  duty  enter  largely  into  their 
fabrication,  it  was  recognized  in  the  tariff  of  1867  that  they  are  entitled  to 
the  full  specific  duty  given  to  cloths  and  to  a higher  ad  valorem  duty  than 
any  other  class;  the  duty  under  that  tariff  being  50  cents  specific  and 
50  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  In  the  present  tariff  the  old  ad  valorem  rate 
is  retained,  but  the  specific  duty  is  reduced  to  30  cents  per  pound.  The 
specific  duty,  we  think,  in  case  of  revision,  should  be  restored  to  an 
equality  with  that  upon  cloth. 

The  Carpet  Clauses. — The  remaining  paragraphs  of  the  w.oolen  sched- 
ule, namely,  369  to  378,  inclusive,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  para- 
graph, 378, # relate  to  carpets.  In  the  construction  of  the  carpet  clauses 
of  the  tariff  of  1867  the  general  principle  applied  to  woolens  proper — 
that  is,  of  making  the  specific  duties  per  square  yard  countervail  the 
amount  paid  on  account  of  the  duties  on  the  material  used,  and  the  ad 
valorem  duty  for  the  protection  of  the  manufactures  the  same  as  given 
to  other  branches  of  the  woolen  manufacture — were  adopted  with  the 
utmost  strictness.  The  data  upon  which  the  specific  duties  upon  all 
the  principal  varieties  of  carpets  were  fixed  in  that  tariff,  comprising 
many  details,  are  given  at  length  in  the  “Reports  of  a commission  ap- 
pointed for  a revision  of  the  revenue  system  of  the  United  States,  1865- 
’66,”  submitted  to  Congress  by  your  Department,  and  printed  as  a pub- 
lic document.  The  full  data  as  to  carpets  will  be  found  on  pages  453, 
459,  and  460  of  that  document.  In  the  appendix  to  this  statement  t will 
be  found  a table  showing  the  amount  of  duties  and  charges  on  the  ma- 
terials used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  leading  varieties,  and  the  neu- 
tralising duties  on  carpets  required,  based  ujion  the  carpet- wool  duties 
in  the  tariff  of  1867  ; and  a corresponding  table  based  upon  the  carpet- 
wool  duties  of  the  tariff  of  1883. 

The  reductions  on  carpet-wools  in  the  revision  of  1883  were  from  6 
to  5 cents  on  wools  costing  above  12  cents  intended  for  washed  wools, 
and  from  3 to  2J  cents  on  wools  costing  below  12  cents  intended  for 
unwashed  wools — a reduction  of  one-sixth.  The  specific  duties  under 
the  old  tariff  having  been  for  sixteen  years  recognized  as  conformable 
to  the  principles  of  that  tariff,  or,  rather,  as  within  the  amount  required 
for  neutralizing  the  duty  on  the  raw  material,  it  would  seem  that  in  the 
revision  the  reduction  of  the  specific  duties  on  carpets  should  have  been 
exactly  proportioned  to  the  reduction  of  the  duty  on  carpet-wools.  In 
the  revision  of  1883,  however,  the  reductions  of  the  specific  duties  on 
carpets  were  irregularly  and  arbitrarily  made,  and  the  symmetry  of  the 
system  was  more  disturbed  than  in  any  other  part  of  the  woolen  tariff. 
This  symmetry,  we  think,  in  case  of  further  revision,  ought  to  be  re- 
stored ; and  the  specific  duties  on  carpets,  recommended  in  case  of  re- 
vision, are  proposed  with  that  object. 

From  the  tables  above  referred  to,  to  be  found  in  the  appendix,  we 
have  prepared  the  following  table,  showing  the  neutralizing  duties  re- 
quired and  the  specific  duties  actually  imposed  in  the  tariff  of  1867,  and 
also  the  neutralizing  duties  required  in  the  tariff  of  1883,  the  specific 
duties  imposed,  and  the  specific  duties,  as  determined  by  a reduction  of 
one-sixth,  from  the  duties  of  1867 — the  latter  being  those  recommended 
in  case  of  revision. 


* In  paragraph  378,  relating  to  endless  belts,  or  felts  for  paper  or  printing  machines, 
no  change  is  recommended  in  case  of  revision,  except  a restoration  of  the  old  ad  va- 
lorem duty, 
t Appendix  D. 


320 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Neutralizing  duties 
required  under 
wool  duties  o f 
1867. 

Specific  duties  im- 
posed in  tariff  of 
1867. 

Neutralizing  duties 
required  under 
wool  duties  o f 
1883. 

Specific  duties  im- 
posed in  tariff  of 
1883. 

Proper  specific  duties 
under  wool  duties  of 
1883, estimated  byre- 
duction of  t from  spe- 
cific duties  of  1867. 

Ingrain  carpets : 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Two-ply 

15. 07 

12  I 

12.56  1 

8 

10 

Three-nly 

19. 50 

17 

16.25  i 

12 

14 

Tapestry  carpets : 

! 

Brussels 

30.  50 

28 

25.42 

20 

23 

Velvets 

44. 31 

40 

36.  93 

25 

3* 

Carpets  wrought  by  Jacquard  machine : 

Brussels 

1 

49. 75 

44 

41.  46 

30 

36 

Wilton 

75. 32 

70 

62.  77 

45 

58 

No  reference  is  made  in  the  above  table  to  Axminster  carpets.  In 
1867  these  carpets  were  not  made  in  this  country,  and  as  the  proper 
elements  of  a specific  duty  could  not  be  known  an  ad  valorem  duty  of 
50  per  cent,  simply  was  imposed  upon  them.  Having  been  since  that 
time  made  here,  under  the  name  of  Moquette  carpets,  a compound  duty 
was  applied  to  them  as  to  other  carpets,  by  the  tariff  of  1883.  They 
should  receive  at  least  the  same  rates,  specific  and  ad  valorem,  as  "Wil- 
ton carpets. 

The  arbitrary  and  undue  reduction  of  the  specific  duties  was  not  the 
only  reduction  applied  to  carpets  in  the  revision  of  1883.  While  an  ad 
valorem  duty  of  not  less  than  35  percent,  was  given  to  all  other  branches 
of  the  woolen  manufacture,  the  ad  valorem  duty  on  carpets,  for  no  ap- 
parent reason,  and  against  the  recommendation  of  the  Tariff  Commis- 
sion, was  reduced  from  35  per  cent,  to  30  per  cent.,  making  the  total 
reduction  on  the  principal  varieties  of  carpets  as  great  as  25  per  cent. 

The  hardship  of  this  reduction  is  more  manifest  when  it  is  considered 
that  it  is  applied  to  a branch  of  manufacture  whose  requisitions  for  tech- 
nical skill  and  perfections  of  machinery  are  not  surpassed  in  the  whole 
range  of  the  textile  industry,  whose  fabrics  must  be  changed  every  year  to 
meet  the  demands  of  fashion,  and  whose  execution  requires  the  most  pro- 
found knowledge  of  the  principles  of  decorative  art  and  of  the  mysteries 
of  dyeing — a branch  of  manufacture  whose  inventions  are  adopted  by  the 
very  mills  in  Europe  with  which  it  competes,  and  whose  products  are 
admitted  to  be  the  best  illustrations  of  American  achievements  in  the 
textile  art — an  industry,  in  short,  entitled,  upon  every  consideration  for 
which  protection  is  ordinarily  claimed,  to  the  very  highest  measure  of 
national  encouragement;  yet  this  industry  is  given  a protective  duty 
over  which  the  average  wool-growing  industry  has  an  advantage  of  47 
per  cent.,  the  principal  branches  of  the  cotton  and  flax  industries  an 
advantage  of  33 J per  cent.,  and  the  silk  industry  an  advantage  of  66§ 
per  cent. 


GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS. 

As  before  intiroated,  we  submit  a corrected  schedule  of  woolen 
duties,  constructed  in  conformity  with  principles  approved  by  both 
branches  of  the  national  wool  industry,  and  commended  by  all  who  be- 
lieve in  the  American  doctrines  of  a national  political  economy — rather 
as  a standard  by  which  the  extent  of  the  late  reductions  in  compensa- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


321 


tion  and  protection  may  be  determined,  than  as  a system  to  be  at  pres- 
ent adopted.  The  existing  woolen  tariff,  notwithstanding  its  imper- 
fections, is  conformed  in  its  main  structure  to  the  principles  which  we 
approve.  It  preserves  the  grand  and  essential  features  of  that  struct- 
ure, the  system  of  compound  duties ; it  admits  of  large  protection  to 
wool,  and  reconciles,  or  ought  to  reconcile,  the  two  interests  of  wool 
production  and  wool  manufacture ; while  its  reductions,  substantial 
though  not  excessive,  ought  to  conciliate  those  equally  opposed  to  high 
protection  and  revolutionary  changes.  The  doubtful  chances  of  im- 
proving a tariff  thus  measurably  good  will  not  justify  exposure,  by  an- 
other revision,  to  the  perils  of  inconsiderate  legislation  and  unfriendly 
amendments ; and  for  these  reasons  we  desire  that  the  existing  wool 
and  woolen  tariff  may  for  the  present  be  undisturbed. 

Proposed  remedy  for  undervaluation. — While  the  present  tariff,  in 
our  opinion,  should  not  be  changed,  we  think  its  efficacy  for  revenue 
purposes  and  the  protection  of  manufacturers  and  honest  importers 
may  be  increased  by  improved  methods  of  administration,  fortunately, 
as  we  think,  within  your  special  province,  and  by  improved  adminis- 
trative legislation,  which  you,  above  all  others,  are  powerful  to  induce. 
We  recognize  with  gratitude  the  administrative  reforms  which  you 
have  already  instituted  for  correcting  the  undervaluation  of  imported 
merchandise  entered  for  customs  duties,  and  would  respectfully  urge 
you  to  exert  your  potent  influence  upon  Congress  for  the  repeal  of  the 
section  of  the  “anti  moieties”  act  of  Tune22, 1874,  whereby  the  burden  of 
proof  of  intent  to  defraud  in  undervaluation  is  imposed  upon  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  for  the  enactment  of  a law  imposing  effectual  penalties 
for  undervaluation. 


CONCLUSION. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  this  communication,  which  we  need  not 
say  is  addressed  not  only  to  you,  but  through  you  to  Congress  and  the 
public,  we  have  not  urged,  as  has  been  customary  with  this  association 
in  former  times,  any  argument  for  encouragement  in  behalf  of  the  im- 
portant industry  most  closely  allied  with  our  own— that  of  wool  pro- 
duction. Circumstances,  which  we  need  not  mention,  seem  to  have 
made  it  expedient  that  each  branch  of  the  national  wool  industry  should 
act  independently  in  representing  its  interests  as  connected  with  tariff 
legislation.  As  the  domestic  wool-grower,  in  view  of  the  high  cost  of 
labor  and  the  high  scale  of  living  required  by  American  civilization, 
cannot  profitably  send  his  wools  abroad,  and  as  every  pound  of  foreign 
cloth  imported — displacing  a pound  of  American  cloth  which  might  be 
made  here — at  the  same  time  displaces  a quadruple  weight  of  domestic 
wool,  it  might  be  claimed  that  the  interests  of  our  nearest  allies  are 
sufficiently  served  by  securing  defenses  for  the  manufactures  which 
constitute  their  only  market.  This  was  the  narrow  and  selfish  argu- 
ment for  exclusive  protection  to  manufactures  in  former  times.  A 
broader  and  more  just  policy  now  regards  protection  to  any  distinct  in- 
terest but  as  a part  of  a universal  system ; and  while  we  demand  for 
our  own  finished  products,  and  more  imperatively  still  for  the  labor  by 
which  they  are  wrought,  the  whole  power  of  defense  granted  by  the 
Constitution  against  other  nations — defense  against  their  policy,  their 
pernicioils  trade,  their  extorted  and  pauper  labor,  no  less  than  against 
their  arms — we  would  extend  the  same  defense  to  every  home  product 
S.  Ex.  72—— 21 


322  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

of  the  farm,  the  mine,  and  the  forest,  thus  making  our  own  identical 
with  the  national  prosperity. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

William  Whitman,  Boston,  Mass.,  President. 

D.  L.  Einstein,  New  York,  N.  Y.  ^ 

Thomas  Dolan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  > Vice-Presidents. 
Samuel  R.  Payson,  Boston,  Mass.  ) 

Benjamin  Phipps,  Boston,  Mass.,  Treasurer. 

Ritfus  S.  Frost,  Boston,  Mass. 

Joseph  Sawyer,  Boston,  Mass. 

John  L.  Houston,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Charles  F.  Fairbanks,  Boston,  Mass. 

George  Maxwell,  Rockville,  Conn. 

John  N.  Carpender,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 

James  Dobson,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Lewis  N.  Gilbert,  Ware,  Mass. 

John  L.  Hayes,  Secretary. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  National  Association  of  Wool  Manu- 
facturers in  the  city  of  New  York,  on  the  7th  of  October  instant,  the 
above  paper  was  read  at  length,  and  by  a resolution  of  the  association 
was  unanimously  approved. 

(Attest:)  JOHN  L.  HAYES,  Secretary. 


Members  of 
> Executive 
Committee , 


Appendix  A. 

Standard  schedule  of  icoolen  duties  based  upon  wool  duties  of  1883. 

362.  Woolen  or  •worsted  cloths,  woolen  or  worsted  shawls,  and  all  manufactures  of 
wool  of  every  description,  made  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  not  specially  enumerated 
or  provided  for  in  this  act,  valued  at  not  exceeding  80  cents  per  pound,  45  cents  per 
pound  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; valued  at  above  80  cents  per  pound,  45  cents  per 
pound,  and  in  addition  thereto  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

363.  Flannels,  blankets,  hats  of  wool,  knit-goods,  and  all  goods  made  on  knittiug- 
frames,  balmorals,  woolen  and  worsted  yarns,  and  all  manufactures  of  every  descrip- 
tion, composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other 
animals  (except  such  as  are  composed  in  part  of  wool),  not  specially  enumerated  or 
provided  for  in  this  act,  valued  at  not  exceeding  30  cents  per  pound,  10  cents  per 
pound;  valued  at  above  30  cents  per  pound,  and  not  exceeding  40  cents  per  pound,  18 
cents  per  pound;  valued  at  above  40  cents  per  pound,  and  not  exceeding  60  cents  per 
pound,  27  cents  per  pound ; valued  at  above  60  cents  per  pound,  and  not  exceeding 
80  cents  per  pound,  36  cents  per  pound  ; and  in  addition  thereto,  upon  all  the  above- 
named  articles,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem ; valued  at  above  80  cents  per  pound,  45  cents 
per  pound,  and  in  addition  thereto,  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

364.  Bunting,  10  cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  35  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem. 

365.  Women’s  and  children’s  dress  goods,  coat  iinings,  Italian  cloths,  and  goods  of 
like  description,  composed  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or 
other  animals,  valued  at  not  exceeding  20  cents  per  square  yard,  5 cents  per  square 
yard,  and  in  addition  thereto,  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; valued  at  above  20  cents  per 
square  yard,  7 cents  per  square  yard,  and  40  percent,  ad  valorem ; if  composed  wholly 
of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  or  of  a mixture  of 
them,  12  cents  per  square  yard  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  but  all  such  goods  with 
selvages,  made  wholly  or  in  part  of  other  materials,  or  with  threads  of  other  mate- 
rials introduced  for  the  purpose  of  changing  the  classification,  shall  bo  dutiable  at  12 
cents  per  square  yard  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; provided,  that  all  goods  enumer- 
ated in  this  paragraph  weighing  over  4 ounces  per  square  yard  shall  pa*y  a duty  of 
45  cents  per  pound  aud  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

366.  Clothing,  ready  made,  and  wearing  apparel  of  every  description,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  foriu  this  act,  aud  balmoral  skirts,  and  skirting,  and  goods 
of  similar  description,  or  used  for  like  purposes,  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


323 


worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals,  made  up  or  manufactured 
wholly  or  in  part  by  the  tailor,  seamstress,  or  manufacturer,  except  knit-goods,  45 
cents  per  pound,  and  in  addition  thereto,  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

307.  Cloaks,  dolmans,  jackets,  talmas,  ulsters,  or  other  outside  garments  for  ladies’ 
and  childrens’  apparel,  and  goods  of  similar  description,  or  used  for  like  purposes, 
composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other 
animals,  made  up  or  manufactured  wholly  or  in  part  by  the  tailor,  seamstress,  or 
manufacturer  (except  knit-goods),  45  cents  per  pound,  and  in  addition  thereto,  45  per 
cent,  ad  valorem. 

368.  Webbings,  gorings,  suspenders,  braces,  beltings,  bindings,  braids,  galloons, 
fringes,  gimps,  cords,  cords  and  tassels,  dress  trimmings,  head  nets,  buttons,  or  barrel 
buttons,  or  buttons  of  other  forms,  for  tassels  or  ornaments,  wrought  by  hand  or 
braided  by  machinery,  made  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other 
animals,  or  of  which  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  or  other  animals  is  a 
component  material,  45  cents  per  pound,  and,  in  addition  thereto,  50  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

369.  Aubusson,  Axminster,  and  chenille  carpets,  and  carpets  woven  whole  for 
rooms,  58  cents  per  square  yard,  and,  in  apdition  thereto,  35  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

370.  Saxony,  Wilton,  and  Tournav  velvet  carpets,  58  cents  per  square  yard,  and, 
in  addition  thereto  35  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

371.  Brussels  carpets,  36  cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  35  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

372.  Patent  velvet  and  tapestry  velvet  carpets,  printed  on  the  warp  or  otherwise, 
33  cents  per  square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  35  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

373.  Tapestry  Brussels  carpets,  printed  on  the  warp  or  otherwise,  23  cents  per 
square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  35  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

374.  Treble  ingrain,  three-ply,  and  worsted-chain  Venetian  carpets,  14  cents  per 
square  yard,  and  in  addition  thereto  35  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

375.  Yarn  Venetian  and  two-ply  ingrain  carpets,  10  cents  per  square  yard,  and,  in 
addition  thereto,  35  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

376.  Druggets  and  bookings,  printed,  colored,  or  otherwise,  15  cents  per  square  yard, 
and  in  addition  thereto  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

377.  Hemp  or  jute  carpeting,  6 cents  per  square  yard. 

378.  Carpets  and  carpetings  of  wool,  flax,  or  cotton,  or  parts  of  either,  or  other  mate- 
rial not  otherwise  herein  specified,  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ; and  mats,  rugs,  screens, 
covers,  hassocks,  bedsides,  and  other  portions  of  carpets  or  carpetings,  shall  be  sub- 
jected to  the  rate  of  duty  herein  imposed  on  carpets  or  carpeting  of  like  character  or 
description ; and  the  duty  on  all  other  mats  not  exclusively  of  vegetable  material, 
e creens,  hassocks,  and  rugs,  shall  be  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

379.  Endless  belts  or  felts  for  paper  or  printing  machines,  20  cents  per  pound  and 
35  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 


Appendix  B. 

Statement  showing  the  number  of  x>ounds  of  wool  required  for  a pound  of  finished  cloth. 

It  was  the  concurrent  testimony  of  experienced  manufacturers  in  186 L and  1864, 
when  the  woolen  tariffs  of  those  dates  were  established,  that  4 pounds  of  Mestiza 
wool,  paying  the  average  duty  on  clothing  wools,  were  required  to  make  a pound  of 
finished  cloth.  That  all  doubt  might  be  removed  as  to  the  correctness  of  this  esti- 
mate, the  executive  committee  of  the  National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers,  in 
submitting  the  statements  upon  which  the  woolen  tariff  of  1867  was  based,  sought  to 
obtain  memoranda  of  actual  experiments  made,  without  reference  to  any  discussion  of 
tariff  questions. 

Amoug  other  statements,  they  obtained  from  the  books  of  the  Proctorville  Woolen 
Mill,  situated  in  the  State  of  Vermont,  a statement  of  the  semi-annual  production  of 
cloth,  the  consumption  of  wool  in  making  such  cloth,  and  the  weight  of  each  yard  of 
cloth  manufactured.  From  this  statement  it  appeared  that  certain  lots  of  cloth  made 
in  that  mill  from  the  1st  day  of  January,  1865,  to  the  last  day  of  June,  inclusive — 
to  wit,  six  months — and  from  the  1st  day  of  July,  1865,  to  the  last  day  of  December, 
1865,  were  manufactured  wholly  from  Mestiza  clothing  wool.  The  accounts  of  the 
mill  show  that  there  were  manufactured  in  the  mill,  in  the  first  six  months,  77,320 
yards  of  blaclc  cassimeres ; that  32.4  ounces  of  wool,  as  jmrehased  in  the  market,  wore 
consumed  in  the  manufacture  of  each  yard  of  said  77,320  yards  of  cloth  ; and  that  the 
average  weight  per  yard  of  the  cloth  was  8.2  ounces  ; or,  in  other  words,  32.4  ounces 
of  wool  were  required  to  make  8.2  ounces  of  finished  cloth.  The  accounts  of  the  mill 
also  showed  that  in  the  last  six  months  there  were  manufactured,  wholly  from  Mes- 
tiza wool,  79, 606£  yards  of. black  doeskins;  that  the  average  weight  of  said  doeskins 


324  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


was  8.2  ounces  per  yard,  and  that  31.1  ounces  of  wool  were  required  to  make  8.2 
ounces  of  such  cloth. 

In  the  discussions  before  the  Tariff  Commission,  preceding  the  legislation  of  1883, 
the  allegation  was  made,  though  unsupported  by  evidence,  that  it  does  not  require 
4 pounds  of  foreign  unwashed  wool  of  the  kinds  at  present  in  vogue  to  make  a 
pound  of  finished  goods.  To  refute  this  allegation  the  following  statements  were 
submitted  to  the  Commission : 

“Mr.  Robert  Middleton,  agent  of  the  Globe  Woolen  Mills  at  Utica, N.  Y. — mills  of 
very  high  celebrity — states  that  4 pounds  of  tine  Australian  unwashed  wool  will  yield 
but  15  ounces  of  fine  finished  cloth  such  as  that  company  is  making. 

“ Mr.  David  Ramsden,  superintendent  of  the  Oswego  Falls  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany, states  that  4 pounds  of  unwashed  Australian  wool  will  yield  only  15  ounces 
of  the  goods  that  that  company  manufactures. 

“ The  items  of  his  estimate  are  as  follows : 

Ounces.  Ounces. 


Four  pounds  of  greasy  or  unwashed  Australian  wool 64 

Loss  in  sorting,  2 per  cent 1.28 

Loss  iu  scouring,  60  per  cent 38.  40 

Loss  in  noils  made  in  combing 6. 14 

Loss  in  preparing  and  spinning 1.  84 

Loss  in  dyeing  and  finishing 1. 34 

49 


15 

“It  is  the  opinion  of  other  manufacturers  that  the  loss  in  the  processes  of  manufact- 
ure is  placed  too  low. 

“The  wools  used  by  Mr.  Ramsden  are  among  the  lightest  of  the  foreign  clothing 
wools,  or  among  those  containing  the  least  grease,  the  wools  from  the  Argentine 
Republic  and  Cape  of  Good  Hope  being  much  heavier. 

“It  is  true  that  this  great  shrinkage  in  the  case  above  referred  to  is  not  all  lost,  a 
part  of  the  waste  in  this  case  consisting  of  noils.  But  the  noils  are  worth  much  less 
than  the  foreign  or  original  cost  of  the  wool  from  which  they  were  made,  without 
the  duty ; that  is,  the  manufacturer  paid  the  duty  ou  the  wool  and  the  noils  included 
in  them.  In  selling  the  noils  he  does  not  get  back  the  duty  paid  upon  the  noils.  And 
the  value  of  the  noils  should  consequently  be  eliminated  from  the  calculation. 

“Mr.  Henry  S.  Coe,  treasurer  of  the  Washington  Mills,  regarded  as  one  of  the  most 
reliable  experts  in  America  in  the  woolen  manufacture,  makes  the  following  state- 
ments : 

“The  number  of  pounds  of  finished  cloth  which  100  pounds  of  scoured  wool  yields  is 
about  as  follows: 


Loss  in  manu- 
facturing. 

Cloths  and  goods  having  a luster 

Pounds. 

65 

70 

75 

Per  cent. 
35 
30 
25 

Fancy  colored  suitings,  cassimeres,  &c 

Plain  flannels,  coatings,  &c 

“(These  are  not  estimates  made  for  this  statement,  but  are  the  results  of  careful  ob- 
servations made  in  the  Washington  Mills,  to  determine  the  cost  of  manufacturing  the 
goods,  and  therefore  the  prices  at  which  they  could  be  sold.) 

“ On  the  above  basis  the  wools  usually  imported  will  take  or  require  the  following  lo 
yield  a pound  of  finished  cloth,  according  to  Bowes  & Co.,  of  Liverpool,  an  accepted 
authority : 


Goods. 

Average 
Cape  wool 
will  shrink 
67  per  cent, 
in  scouring. 

Average 
Mestiza 
shrink  65  per 
cent. 

Average  Ade- 
laide and 
Australian 
shrink  62  per 
cent. 

Faced  goods 

Pounds. 

4.  66 
4. 33 
4.04 

Pounds. 

4.  40 
4.  09 
3.81 

Pounds. 

4.  05 
3.  70 
3. 51 

Suitings  cassimeres  &.c. 

Flannels,  coatings,  &c  

revision  of  the  tariff. 


325 


“The  formulas  by  which  the  above  calculations  am  made  may  he  illustrated  as  fol- 
lows : 

“ Loss  in  Cape  wool  in  scouring,  6?  per  cent.,  leaves  33  pounds  clean  wool. 

“ This  clean  wool  loses  35  per  cent,  in  manufacturing. 

33  pounds. 

less  35  per  cent.,  11.55  pounds. 

21.45  pounds  of  cloth. 

100  pounds  (clean  wool)  -f-  21.45  = 4.66  pounds  of  wool  to  1 pound  of  cloth.” 
That  the  estimate  of  4 pounds  of  vfool  for  a pound  of  finished  goods  is  a correct  one 
is  further  shown  by  the  following  considerations  : 

The  existing  wool  tariff,  by  placing  a double  duty  on  washed  wools  and  a treble 
duty  on  scoured  wool  of  the  first  class,  prohibits  the  manufacturer  from  importing 
the  latter  wools,  and  compels  him  to  buy  all  his  wools  in  an  unwashed  state.  The 
law,  by  making  the  duty  on  scoured  or  clean  clothing  wool  three  times  the  duty  on 
unwashed  wool,  clearly  admits  and  recognizes  that  three  pounds  of  unwashed  foreign 
wool  are  required  to  make  one  pound  of  clean  or  scoured  wool  ready  for  the  picker, 
or  before  the  first  processes  of  manufacture,  involving  a further  loss,  are  commenced. 
Three  pounds  of  wool  entering  into  the  finished  cloth  are  thus  accounted  for,  and  it 
is  showD  above  that  there  is  a further  loss  on  clean  wool  in  manufacturing  of  from  25 
to  35  per  cent.,  according  to  the  cloth,  which  will  more  than  account  for  the  other 
pound  of  unwashed  wool  required  to  make  a pound  of  finished  cloth. 


Appendix  C. 

Tables  showing  the  prices  at  which  wools  of  all  classes  could  he  bought  in  1884  in  the  princi- 
pal foreign  markets,  the  existing  duty  upon  them , the  cost  of  importation  ( including  com- 
missions) from  the  port  of  shipment  to  Boston,  the  total  cost  at  Boston,  the  percen  tage  of 
duty  upon  their  cost,  and  the  percentage  of  duly  and  cost  of  importation  ( including  com- 
missions) upon  their  cost. 

PRELIMINARY  NOTES  UPON  THE  TABLES  FOLLOWING. 

Table  1 refers  exclusively  to  unwashed  merino  wools,  designated  under  the  law  as 
class  1,  clothing  wools.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  all  wools  not  described  or  desig- 
nated in  classes  2 and  3 are  classed  as  clothing  or  class  1 wools.  This  classification 
being  by  blood,  embraces  a wide  range  of  wools  that  are  better  adapted  for  comb- 
ing than  for  carding  purposes.  A very  large  proportion  of  the  wool  imported  under 
this  class  is  known  to  the  trade  as  combing- wool,  and  is  used  as  such.  It  will  be 
noticed  that  the  lowest-cost  wool  named  in  this  table  is  10  cents  per  pound  at  London. 
Some  may  think  it  unfair  to  base  a calculation  on  so  low  a price ; but  it  is  not  so,  for 
this  price  is  an  actual  quotation  for  Adelaide  greasy  wool,  classed  as  “superior,”  and 
large  quantities  of  wool  of  this  character  are  frequently  sold  in  London  at  a less  price 
than  quoted.  We  have  begun  with  a valuation  of  20  cents  per  pound  on  wools  im- 
ported direct  from  Australia,  although  wools  are  sold  there  at  less  than  10  cents  per 
pouud,  because  we  do  not  wish  the  table  to  be  too  long,  and  because  most  of  the  wools 
now  imported  to  this  country  from  Australia  cost  from  20  to  28  cents  per  pound.  We 
have  not  included  in  this  table  the  low-priced  wools  grown  in  Africa  and  South  America, 
because  so  few  of  them  are  now  imported  that  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain  their  cost 
of  importation.  It  will  be  seen  that  on  wool  costing  10  cents  per  pound  at  London  the 
duty  is  10  cents  per  pound  = 100  per  cent.  The  cost  of  importation,  including  com- 
mission, is  1.78  cents  per  pound  = 17.80  per  cent.  In  other  words,  a pound  of  wool 
costing  10  cents  at  London  costs,  landed  at  Boston  (including  commissions,  21.78 
cents.  It  is  apparent  that  the  duty  is  100  per  cent,  on  the  cost,  and  that  the  duty 
and  expenses  of  importation  amount  to  117.80  per  cent,  on  the  cost.  On  wool  costing 
at  London  29  cents  per  pound— the  highest  price  (fractional  parts  of  a cent  excluded) 
at  which  it  can  be  imported  under  the  10-cent  duty — the  duty  is  10  cents  per  pound 
= 34.48  percent. ; the  cost  of  importation  (including  commissions)  is  4.5  cents  per 
pound  = 13.97  per  cent.  In  other  words,  one  pound  of  wool  costing  at  London  29 
cents  per  pound  costs  at  Boston  (including  commissions)  43.5  cents  per  pound ; the 
duty  on  it  is  equal  to  34.48  per  cent.,  and  the  duty  and  cost  of  importation  is  48.45 
percent.  On  clasB  1 unwashed  wool  it  is  a fair  statement  to  make  that  the  duty 
ranges  from  34.48  per  cent,  to  100  per  cent,  on  the  cost,  and  that  the  duty  and  cost  of 
importation  range  from’  48.45  per  cent  to  117.80  per  cent,  on  the  cost.  On  some  lower- 
priced  wools  imported  direct  from  the  place  of  growth  the  percentage  of  duty  and 
cost  of  importation  would  be  still  greater ; but  we  leave  out  of  the  table  such  ex- 
treme cases. 


326  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


It  is  to  be  noticed  that  washed  wools  in  class  1 are  subject  to  double  the  duty  <>f 
unwashed.  Australian  Merino  washed  fleece  wool  ranges  in  price  at  London  from  26 
cents  to  72  cents  per  pound.  On  Tasmanian  washed  fleeces  the  price  is  26  cents  per 
pound  and  the  duty  is  20  cents  per  pound,  or  76.92  per  cent.  On  Port  Philip  washed 
fleece,  costing  at  London  33  cents  per  pound,  the  duty  is  24  cents  per  pound,  or  72.72 
per  cent.  The  duty  on  scoured  wool  of  class  1 is  three  times  the  amount  of  duty  on 
unwashed  ; and  on  New  Zealand  scoured  wool,  costing  at  London  31  cents  per  pound, 
the  duty  is  36  cents  per  pound,  or  116.13  per  cent,  on  its  cost.  On  Port  Philip  scoured 
fleece,  costing  at  London  42  cents  per  pound,  the  duty  is  36  cents  per  pound,  or  85.70 
per  cent.  The  tariff  is  so  arranged  as  to  compel  the  importations  of  class  1 wools  to 
be  in  the  greasy  state,  and  almost  the  whole  of  them  imported  into  the  United  States 
are  in  the  grease.  It  has  been  established  that-it  requires  an  average  of  four  pounds 
of  such  wool  to  make  one  pound  of  cloth;  consequently,  the  American  manufacturer 
who  uses  such  wool  is  compelled  to  pay  the  transportation  charges  on  from  2£  to  3 
pounds  grease  and  dirt-in  the  wool,  which  is  all  waste,  that  is  required  to  make  one 
pound  of  cloth. 

WASTE. 

On  wool  waste  and  on  other  substitutes  for  wool  there  is  a duty  of  10  cents  per 
pound,  which  is  practically  prohibitory.  Such  substitutes  vary  in  prices  very  much, 
depending  upon  their  nature  and  condition.  There  is  no  standard  and  quotable  price 
for  them.  The  duty  on  them  in  many  cases  amounts  to  several  times  their  foreign 
value.  This  enormous  duty  on  wool  substitutes  is  very  burdensome,  because  they  can 
be  so  usefully  employed  to  mix  with  wool  in  the  manufacture  of  cheap  heavy  cloth. 

Table  2 refers  exclusively  to  class  2 combing-wools,  or  what  are  known  as  wools  of 
English  blood.  In  this  class  the  range  of  the  percentage  of  duty  to  cost  is  not  so  ex- 
treme as  in  class  1 ; yet  the  duty  varies  from  37.4  to  71.43  per  cent,  on  competing 
wools,  and  the  duty  and  cost  of  importation  (including  commission)  range  from  50.67 
to  86.50  per  cent.  These  wools  are  long,  coarse,  lieavy-fibered,  and  are  grown  on  what 
are  known  as  mutton  sheep.  Attention  is  directed  to  the  fact  that  cross-bred  and 
English-blood  wools  grown  in  Australasia,  if  imported  washed,  are  subject  to  twice  the 
amount  of  duty  of  unwashed  wool.  Washed  wools  of  this  class  range  in  value  from 
19  to  43  cents  per  pound  at  London.  On  such  wool,  costing  19  cents  per  pound,  the 
duty  is  20  cents  per  pound,  105.26  per  cent,  on  the  cost.  The  duty  upon  scoured  wool 
of  this  class  is  three  times  the  amount  of  the  duty  imposed  upon  washed  aud  un- 
washed. Such  scoured  wools  range  in  price  from  19  cents  to  44  cents  per  pound  at 
London.  On  this  wool,  costing  19  cents  per  pound,  the  duty  is  30  cents  per  pound, 
or  157.89  per  cent.,  and  when  it  costs  34  cents  per  pound  the  same  duty  is  equivalent 
to  88.24  per  cent. 

Table  3 refers  exclusively  to  class  3,  carpet  wools.  All  of  the  figures  given  therein 
are  based  on  actual  transactions.  During  the  last  few  years  there  has  beeu  a great 
decline  in  English  wools,  caused  by  changes  of  fashion  in  women’s  dress-goods,  and 
these  wools  are  now  used  very  largely  by  English  carpet  manufacturers,  because  of 
their  low  price.  Our  carpet  manufacturers  are  excluded  from  using  these  wools,  be- 
cause, with  the  heavy  duty  imposed  upon  them,  they  would  cost  too  much.  If  these 
English  wools  should  again  be  used  for  dress-goods  theirprice  would  be  increased,  and 
the  English  carpet  manufacturer  would  be  compelled  to  draw  a larger  proportion  of 
his  supply  of  wool  from  those  countries  and  in  that  class  which  are  now  brought  to  our 
market.  Such  a change  of  fashion  and  demand  would  increase  the  prices  of  carpet- 
wools  abroad,  and  very  many  of  them  which  are  at  present  subject  to  a duty  of  2£  cents 
per  pound  would  then,  in  consequence  of  their  increased  value,  be  dutiable  at  5 cents 
per  pound — an  increase  in  the  duty  of  100  per  cent.  In  this  table  extreme  cases  are 
omitted.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  percentage  of  duty  ranges  from  20.89  per  cent,  to  34.06 
percent,  on  cost  at  port  of  shipment,  and  that  the  duty  and  cost  of  importation  (includ- 
ing commission)  ranges  from  47.70  per  cent,  to  62.33  per  cent,  on  cost  at  port  of  ship- 
ment. It  seems  to  us  that  these  tables  demonstrate  that  there  is  now  a sufficiently  high, 
if  not  an  unnecessarily  high,  duty  on  this  great  staple  for  the  full  protection  of  the 
American  grower  of  raw  material.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  attention  of  the  slieep- 
growersinthe  old  and  thickly  populated  states  of  this  country  should  be  given  primarily 
to  the  raising  of  sheep  for  human  food  aud  for  breeding  purposes  a:  d secondarily  to 
the  wool.  The  wools  that  will  be  most  needed  during  tiie  next  decade  are  tine  merino 
combing,  fine  cross-bred  combing,  and  medium  fine  combing  wools.  What  is  known 
in  the  trade  as  No.  1 combing  or  half  blood  combing  wool  is  relatively  in  the  most 
limited  supply  all  over  the  world.  It  is  very  difficult  to  find  in  quantity  among 
foreign  wools  any  th"  t will  take  the  place  of  our  American  No.  1,  nr  half-blood  de- 
laine and  combing  wool. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


327. 


Table  No.  1. — Class  I,  Clothing  Wools. 

[DUTY — Unwashed:  Valued  at  not  exceeding  30  cents  per  pound,  10  cents  per  pound;  valued  at 
exceeding  30  cents  per  pound,  12  cents  per  pound.  Washed:  Wools  of  this  class  pay  twice  and 
scoured  wools  three  times,  the  amount  of  duty  imposed  upon  unwashed  wool.] 


Kind  of  wool. 

Port  of  shipment. 

• 

Cost  per  pound  at  port  of 
shipment. 

Duty  per  pound 

Cost  of  importation  at 
Boston,  including  com- 
mission, per  pound. 

Total  duty  and  cost  of  im- 
portation at  Boston,  in- 
cluding commission,  per 
pound. 

Total  cost  per  pound  at 
Boston. 

P ercentage  of  duty  on  cost 
at  port  of  shipment. 

Percentage  of  duty  and  ex- 
pense of  importation,  in- 
cluding commission,  on 
cost  at  port  of  shipment. 

Adelaide,  greasy 

10 

10 

1.78 

11. 78 

21.78 

100. 00 

117. 80 
107.  82 
99.  50 

do 

11 

10 

1.  86 

11.  86 

22.  86 

90.  90 

Cape,  do 

do 

12 

10 

1.94 

11.  94 

23.  94 

83.  33 

Sydney,  ...do 

Tasmania, . . .do 

do 

13 

10 

2.  02 

12. 02 

25.  02 

76.  92 

92.  46 
86.  50 
81.  20 

...  do  

14 

10 

2.11 

12. 11 

26. 11 

71. 43 

do 

15 

10 

2. 18 

12. 18 

27. 18 

66.  67 

do 

16 

10 

2.  26 

12.26 

28.  26 

62.  50 

76.  62 

....do 

17 

10 

2.  35 

12.  35 

29.  35 

58. 82 

72.  65 
69.  05 

do 

18 

10 

2.43 

12.  43 

30.  43 

55.  55 

do 

do 

19 

20 

10 

10 

2.  52 

3.  07 

12.  52 

13.  07 

31.  52 
33.  07 

52.  63 
50.  00 

65.  90 
65.  35 

Port  Phillip,  Sydney, 
Queensland,  Adelaide, 
New  Zealand,  Tas- 
mania, and  Cape, 

do 

21 

10 

3. 12 

13. 12 

34. 12 

47.  62 

62.  48 

...do  

22 

10 

3. 17 

13.17 

35. 17 

46.  45 
43.  48 

59.  87 

do 

23 

10 

' 3.22 

13.  22 

36.  22 

57.  48 

do 

24 

10 

3.  54 

13.  54 

37.  54 

41.  67 

56.  38 

...  do  

25 

10 

3.  59 

13.  59 

38.  59 

40.  00 

54.  36 

greasy. 

do  

26 

10 

3.  64 

13.  64 

39.  64 

38.  46 

52.  46 

do 

27 

10 

3.  68 

13.  68 

40.  68 

37.  04 

50.  67 

do 

28 

10 

3.74 

13.  74 

41.  74 

35. 71 

49.  07 

do 

do 

29 

31 

10 

12 

4.  05 
4.  51 

14.  05 
16.  51 

43.  05 
47.  51 

34. 48 
38.71 

48.  45 
53.  26 

do 

32 

12 

4.  56 

16.  56 

48.  56 

37.  50 

51.75 

do 

33 

12 

4.  61 

16.  61 

49.  61 

36.  36 

50.  34 

f 

Sydney  

20 

10 

4.  77 

14.  77 

34.  77 

50.  00 

73.  85 

Port  Phillip  . 
Sydney  

20 

22 

10 

10 

4.  97 
4.96 

14.  97 
14.  96 

34.  97 
36.  96 

50.  00 
45.  45 

74.  85 
68.  00 

Sydney  and  Port  Phillip 
wools,  imported  directs 

1 

Port  Phillip  . 

do 

Sydney  

22 

24 

24 

10 

10 

10 

5. 16 
5.  36 

5. 17 

15. 16 
15.  36 

15. 17 

37. 16 
39.  36 

39. 17 

45. 45 
41.  67 
41.  67 

68.  91 
64.  00 
63.  21 

from  place  of  growth. 

do 

26 

10 

5.  36 

15.  36 

41.  36 

38. 46 

59.  08 

Port  Phillip  . 
do 

26 

28 

10 

10 

5.  56 
5.  77 

15.  56 
15.77 

41.  56 
43.  77 

38.  46 
35.  71 

59.  85 
56.32 

Sydney  

28 

10 

5.55 

15.55 

43.  55 

35.71 

55.  53 

328  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Table  No.  2. — Class  II,  Combing  Wools. 


[DUTY — Washed  and  unwashed:  Valued  at  not  exceeding  30  cents  per  pound,  10  cents  per  pound; 
valued  at  exceeding  30  cents  per  pound,  12  cents  per  pound.  Scoured  wools  of  this  class  pay  three 
times  the  duty  imposed  upon  washed  and  unwashed.] 


Kind  of  wool. 

Port  of  shipment. 

Cost  per  pound  at  port  of 
shipment. 

Duty  per  pound. 

Cost  of  importation  at 
Boston,  including  com- 
mission, per  pound. 

Total  duty  ond  cost  of  im- 
portation at  Boston,  in-l 
eluding  commission,  per 
pound. 

Total  cost  per  pound  at 
Boston. 

Percentage  of  duty  on  cost 
at  port  of  shipment. 

Percentage  of  duty  and  ex- 
penseof  importation,  in- 
cluding commission,  on 
costat'portof  shipment. 

English  washed 

Liverpool . . . 

18 

10 

2. 81 

12.  81 

30.81 

55.55 

71. 17 

Dn  

do 

19 

10 

2.  87 

12.  87 

31.87 

52.63 

67.  74 

Do  

do 

20 

10 

3.  07 

13.  07 

33. 07 

50.  00 

65.  35 

Do 

. . do 

21 

10 

3. 12 

13. 12 

34. 12 

47.  62 

62.  48 

Do 

do 

22 

10 

3. 17 

13. 17 

35. 17 

45.45 

59.  86 

Do 

23 

10 

3.  22 

13. 22 

36.  22 

43.48 

57.  48 

Do 

do 

24 

10 

3.  54 

13.  54 

37.  54 

41.  67 

56.  38 

Do 

. _ do ] 

25 

10 

3.  59 

13.  59 

38.59 

40.  00 

54.  36 

Do 

do 

26 

10 

3.  64 

13.  64 

39.  64 

38.46 

52.  46 

Dn  

...do  

27 

10 

3.  68 

13.  68 

40.  68 

; 37. 04 

50.  67 

Canada  washed 

Hamilton 

20 

10 

2.  60 

12.  60 

32.  60 

50.  00 

63.  00 

Do 

. . do 

21 

10 

2.  65 

12.  65 

33.65 

47.  62 

60.  24 

i 

r 

London 

14 

10 

2. 11 

12.11 

26.11 

71. 43 

86.  50 

Australian  and  New  Zea-  | 

do  

15 

10 

2. 18 

12. 18 

27.18 

66.  67 

81.20 

land,  unwashed,  cross-  1 

do 

16 

10 

2.26 

12.  26 

28.  26 

62.  50 

76.  62 

bred,  and  English-] 

do 

17 

10 

2.  35 

12. 35 

29.35 

58.  83 

72.  65 

blood  wools. 

do 

18 

10 

2.  43 

12.43 

30.  43 

55.  55 

69.  05 

1 

[ 

do 

19 

10 

2.  52 

12.  52 

31.52 

52.  63 

65.  90 

Table  No.  3. — Class  III , Carpet  wools  and  other  similar  wools. 


[DUTY. — Washed  and  unwashed : Valued  at  not  exceeding  12  cents  per  pound,  2|  cents  per  pound ; 
valued  at  over  12  cents  per  pound,  5 cents  per  pound.  Scoured  wools  of  this  class  pay  three  times 
the  duty  imposed  upon  washed  and  unwashed.]  ’ 


Kind  of  wool. 

Port  of  shipment. 

Cost  per  pound  at  port  of 
' shipment. 

Cost  per  pound  at  port  of 
shipment.* 

Cost  per  pound  of  importa- 
tion to  Boston,  including 
commissions. 

Specific  duty  per  pound. 

Total  duty  and  cost  of  im- 
portation per  pound  at  Bos- 
ton,including  commissions. 

Total  cost  per  pound  at  Bos- 
ton. 

Total  cost  per  pound  at  Bos- 
ton, plus  5 per  cent. 

[ Per  cent,  of  total  dnty  on 
: cost  at  port*  of  shipment. 

Per  cent,  of  total  duty  and  ex- 
penses of  importations,  in- 
cludingcommission,on  cost, 
at  port  of  shipment. 

1.  Persian 

Alexandretta 

Pence. 
5. 17 

Cts. 

10.51 

Cts. 

1.  88 

Cts. 

2.50 

Cts. 
4. 38 

Cts. 

14.89 

Cts. 
15.  63 

Per 

cent. 

23.79 

Per  cent. 
41.67 

2.  Persian 

do 

5# 

11.74 

2. 10 

2.  50 

4.  60 

16. 34 

17. 16 

21.29 

39.18 

3.  Damascus 

do 

5j 

10.  63 

1.37 

2.  50 

3.  87 

14.  50 

15.  22 

23.52 

36.41 

4.  Salonica 

Marseilles  . . 

Francs 
1.37  lc  K. 

11.95 

1. 17 

2. 50 

3.67 

15. 62 

16.  40 

20. 92 

30.  71 

5.  Scotch,  unwashed 

Liverpool . . . 

i Pence. 
5h 

11.89 

1. 

2.  50 

3.75 

15. 64 

16.  42 

21.  03 

31.54 

6.  Scotch,  washed  . . 

do 

7i 

14.  66 

96 

5.  00 

5.  96 

20.  64 

21.67 

34.06 

40.  60 

7.  East  India,  white 

— do 

lOi 

21.  26 

.53 

5.00 

5.53 

26.  79 

28. 13 

23.  52 

26.  01 

.Valparaiso, bought 

- - do 

5| 

11.  89 

.60 

2.  50 

3.10 

14.  99 

15.  74 

21.  03 

26.07 

in  Liverpool. 

9.  Criolla 

Montevideo. 

Peraroba. 
$2.  23 

9. 29 

3.  29 

2.50 

5.79 

15.  08 

15.83 

26.  91 

62.  33 

10.  Cordova 

Kosario 

Peraroba. 
j 24£  rls. 

11. 97 

3.  21 

2.  50 

5. 71 

17. 68 

18.  56 

20.89 

1 

47.  70 

Exchange  at  $4.86. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


329 


Appendix  D. 

CARPETS  TARIFF  OF  1867. 


Table  showing  the  amount  of  duties  and  charges  on  the  materials  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  a running  yard  and  a square  yard  of  the  leading  varieties  of  carpets,  the  fractions  of 
cents  and  of  ounces  being  expressed  by  decimals. 


Items. 

Ingrain  carpets. 

Tapestry  carpets 
printed  on  the  warp. 

Carpets  wrought  by 
the  Jaquard  machine. 

Two-ply. 

Three-ply. 

Brussels. 

Velvet. 

Brussels. 

Wilton. 

Neutralizing  duties  and  charges, 

Cts. 

Cts. 

Cts. 

Cts. 

Cts. 

Cts. 

viz: 

Duties  on  the  wools  used  — 

11.  70 

15. 23 

11. 80 

17.  71 

24. 92 

39.36 

Duties  on  the  linen  or  tow 

yarn 

6.  00 

8.00 

6. 00 

8.  00 

Duties  on  drugs  and  other 

imported  materials 

2.  00 

2.  50 

3. 00 

4.  50 

3.  00 

4.  00 

Totals  of  neutralizing 

duties 

13.  70 

17. 73 

20.  80 

30.  21 

33.  92 

51.  36 

Charges  on  account  of  du- 

ties, 10  per  cent 

1. 37 

1.  77 

2.  08 

3.  02 

3. 39 

5.13 

Totals  of  neutralizing  du- 

ties and  charges  per  run- 

- 

ning  yard 

15.  07 

19. 50 

22.  88 

33.  23 

37.  31 

56.49 

Totals  of  neutralizing  du- 

ties and  charges  per 

square  yard 

15. 07 

19.  50 

30.  50 

44.  31 

49.  75 

75.32 

Specific  duties  under  tariff  of  1867 

12.  00 

17. 00 

28.  00 

40.  00 

44.  00 

70.  00 

On  all  the  above,  in  addition,  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  35  per  cent. 


CARPETS  TARIFF  OF  1883. 

Table  showing  the  amount  of  duties  and  charges  on  the  materials  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
a running  yard  and  a square  yard  of  the  leading  varieties  of  carpets  ; the  fractions  of 
cents  and  of  ounces  being  expressed  by  decimals. 


Items. 

Ingrain  carpets. 

Tapestry  carpets 
printed  on  the 
warp. 

Carpets  wrought 
by  the  Jaquard 
machine. 

Two-ply. 

Three-ply 

Brussels. 

Velvet. 

Brussels. 

Wilton. 

Neutralizing  duties  and  charges,  viz : 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Duties  on  the  wools  used 

9. 75 

12.  69 

9.  83 

14.  76 

20. 77 

32. 80 

Duties  on  the  linen  or  tow  yarn 

6.  00 

8.  00 

6.  00 

8.  00 

Duties  on  drugs  and  other  imported  ma- 

terials   

2.00 

2.  50 

3.  00 

4.50 

3.  00 

4.  00 

Totals  of  neutralizing  duties 

11. 42 

14. 78 

17.  33 

25.17 

28.  27 

42.  80 

Charges  on  account  of  duties,  10  per  cent 

1. 14 

1. 48 

1. 73 

2.  52 

2.  83 

4.28 

Totals  of  neutralizing  duties  and 
charges  per  running  yard 

12.  56 

16. 25 

19.  07 

27.  69 

31.  09 

47.  08 

Total  of  neutralizing  duties  and 

charges  per  square  yard 

12.  56 

16. 25 

25.42 

36.9 

41.  46 

62. 77 

Specific  duties  under  tariff  of  1883 

8.  00 

12. 00 

20. 00 

25.  00 

30.  00 

45T00 

On  all  the  above,  in  addition,  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  per  cent. 


330 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


The  following  printed  circular,  received  at  this  Department  from  a 
woolen  manufacturing  company,  appears  to  have  been  sent  by  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers  to  the  wool  manufacturers 
throughout  the  country: 

National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers, 

Office,  70  Kilby  Street, 
Boston,  Mass.,  October  28,  1885. 

Dear  sir:  You  will  receive  by  the  mail  which  carries  this  communication  a copy 
of  a pamphlet  entitled,  “The  Woolen  Tariff  Defended  and  Explained  by  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers,”  in  response  to  a circular  of  Hon.  Daniel 
Manning,  Secretary  of  the 'Treasury,  of  July  18,  1885. 

We  send  you  that  document,  with  the  earnest  request  that  you  would  carefully  read 
and  consider  it,  in  the  hope  that  we  may  have  yonr  active  and  personal  cooperation 
in  the  object  for  which  it  was  written,  viz : preserving  the  foundation  rock  of  our 
prosperity  as  wool  manufacturers,  the  present  woolen  tariff. 

The  circular  of  Secretary  Manning,  and  other  information  of  which  we  are  possessed, 
place  it  beyond  question  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  Administration  to  bring  its 
powerful  influence  to  bear  upon  Congress  for  a general  revision  of  the  tariff,  and  the 
scheme  of  Secretary  Manning,  especially,  involves  the  destruction  of  the  system  of 
compound  duties,  the  indispensable  defense  of  the  woolen  manufacture,  as  fully  set 
forth  in  the  document  referred  to. 

We  are  aware  that  there  is  a difference  of  opinion  among  wool  manufacturers  as  to 
desirableness  of  a duty  upon  wool.  Waiving  that  question,  as  we  have  in  the  response 
to  Secretary  Manning,  and  assuming  that  the  continuance  of  a wool  duty  for  the 
present  is  a political  necessity,  we  presume  that  every  intelligent  wool  manufacturer 
in  the  country  will  admit  that  the  principle  of  the  existing  woolen  tariff — a compen- 
satory duty  for  the  raw  material  and  a further  protective  duty — is  the  best  system 
that  can  be  devised. 

I bis  system  is  now  in  deadly  peril.  Nothing  can  save  it  but  the  individual  efforts 
of  the  manufacturers  whose  interests  are  imperiled. 

We  ought  to  be  able  to  present  to  Congress  at  least  a thousand  individual  protests 
against  a change  of  the  existing  system. 

We  ask  you,  therefore,  if  you  can  consistently  do  so  after  reading  the  document 
above  referred  to,  to  express  yonr  approval  of  the  following  propositions : 

First.  That  there  should  be  no  change  at  present  in  the  existing  wool  and  woolen 
tariff,  nor  any  general  revision  of  the  tariff  at  the  next  session  of  Congress. 

Second.  That,  in  case  of  any  revision  of  the  tariff,  so  long  as  a duty  is  'imposed 
upon  wool,  it  is  indispensable  for  the  prosperity  of  tbe  woolen  manufacture  that  the 
present  system  of  compound  duties  be  strictly  maintained. 

To  make  your  opinion  effective,  we  earnestly  request  you  to  sign  the  two  inclosed 
papers  embodying  these  propositions,  and  to  inclose  one  to  the  secretary  of  this  as- 
sociation, according  to  the  address  on  the  inclosed  envelope,  and  the  other  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  although  a personal  manuscript  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  the  same  effect  would  be  better. 

As  we  cannot  doubt  that  your  practical  experience  must  lead  you  to  agree  to  the 
above  proposition,  we  would  urge  upon  you  the  importance  of  making  your  views 
known  by  letter  or  personal  communication  to  the  representative  of  your  district  in 
Congress. 

In  behalf  of  the  National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers. 

WILLIAM  WHITMAN, 

Prisident. 

JOHN  L.  HAYES, 

Secretary. 

N.  B. — If  you  approve  of  the  inclosures,  please  transmit  them  at  once. 

Printed  letters,  responsive  to  the  above,  in  form  similar  to  the  follow- 
ing, have  been  received  by  the  Department  from  the  individuals,  firms, 
and  corporations  named  below.  These  will  be  transmitted  separately  to 
Congress. 


Cohoes,  November  11,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Wasliinyton,  D.  C. : 

Sir  : The  undersigned,  manufacturer  of  knit  underwear  at  Cohoes,  in  the  county  of 
Albany,  and  State  of  New  York,  employing  eighteen  sets  of  machinery,  hereby  declare 
my  approval  of  the  policy,  in  relatiou  to  a,  revision  of  the  tariff,  set  forth  by  the.  Na- 
tional Association  of  Wool  Man ufa.e ‘u tors,  in  response  to  a circular  of  Hon.  Daniel 
Manning,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  of  July  Id,  lddo. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


381 


The  features  of  the  policy  set  forth  in  thatresponse  which  I especially  approve  are: 
First.  That  there  shall  be  no  change  at  present  in  the  existing  wool  and  woolen 
tariff,  nor  a general  tariff  revision  dt  the  next  session  of  Congress.  • 

Second.  That  in  case  of  any  revision  of  the  tariff,  so  long  as  a duty  is  imposed  upon 
wool,  it  is  indispensable  for  the  prosperity  of  the  woolen  manufacture  that  the  present 
system  of  compound  duties  upon  woolens  should  be  strictly  maintained. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

ANDREW  J.  ROOT, 
Treasurer  Root  Manufacturing  Company. 


Name. 


Place. 


Name. 


Place. 


J.  G.  Linbach  & Co 

Jonathan  King  & Son 

M.  Halfpenny  & Co 

Coulter,  Rogers  & Co 

J.  F.  Rich  & Son 

W.  F.  Rumberger  & Son  . . . 

Leopold  Seekinger 

J.  Randall  & Bros 

Folwell  Brothers  & Co 

Todd  Brothers 

James  Pollock  & Son 

Daniel  Bremer 

William  H.  Pope  & Son 

Craven  & Darnley 

Gundy  Brothers  & Co 

W.  E.  Montague 

William  S.  Morgan  

William  Emsley  & Bro 

John  Wilson  & Co 

J.  S.  Ingham 

James  Lees  & Sons 

Johnstown  Manufacturing 

Company. 

Hugh  Kennorthy 

John  Bardsly  & Co 

J oshua,  Peirce  & Co 

Muehling,  IJlmer  & Johnson 
James  & George  Bromley.. 

B.  Hamhill  & Co 

McCallum,  Crease  & Sloan. 

Samuel  M.  McClure 

John  E Hariferd  & Co 

Jasper  Shoemaker 

Erben,  Search  & Co 

John  Bromley  Sons 

H.  Holmes 

Shaw,  Stein  & Sons.. 

John  N.  Kantner 

William  Arrott  & Co 

K.  F.  Winner 

D.  & W.  King 

Pennsylvania  Woolen  Com- 
pany. 

Homer  Brothers 

S.  B.  B.  W.  Fleisher 

Clark  & Keen 

J.  Dalton  & Bros 

Charles  Spencer  & Co 

A.  J.  Brumbach 

James  & Davenport 

Campleno  & Elliott 

Philip  Schum,  Son  & Co  . . . 

Williams  Brothers 

W.  A.  Stevenson 

James  Wright 

John  Flemming  & Sons 

L.  D.  Yanney 

Dunkirk  Knitting  Mills 

Hanower  & Austin 

Jones,  Lewis  & Thomas  ... 

Swits  Conde 

James  Allen 

Saxony  Knitting  Company. 

E.  Dole  & Co 

Troy  Blanket  Mills 

S.  S.  Smith 


Reading,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Lewisburg,  Pa. 
Muncy,  Pa. 

Chatham,  Pa. 
Craigsville,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Germantown,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
New  Bethlehem,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
New  Lebanon,  Pa. 
Gelatt,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Bristol,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Quemahoning,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Do. 

Academy  Corners,  Pa 
Bridgeport,  Pa. 
Johnstown,  Pa. 

Coatesville,  Pa. 
Germantown,  Pa. 
Bristol,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Do. 

Germantown,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Dalton,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Somerset,  Pa. 

Derby,  Pa. 

Pleasant  Mount,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Germantown,  Pa. 
Reading,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Do. 

Lancaster,  Pa. 

Rome,  Pa. 
Carmichaels,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Yonkers,  N.  Y. 
Ephratah,  N.  Y. 
Dunkirk,  N.  Y. 
Amsterdam,  N.  Y.  | 
West  Eaton,  N.  Y. 
Oswego,  N.  Y. 
Philmont,  N.  Y.  I 
Little  Falls,  N.  Y. 
Cramptonville,  N.  Y.[ 
Troy,  N.  Y. 

Saint  Johnsville^.Y1 


Scar  Knitting  Company 

T.  & W.  Yandemark  & Mit- 
chell. 

James  Aken 

James  Roy  & Co 

Church,  Wright  & Congee. 

Beaverwyck  Mills 

Orange  Cio.  Woolen  Mills  . . 
Greene  Knitting  Company. 
Ranken  Knitting  Company. 

H.  Waterbury  & Sons 

Edwin  Farrow 

Smith  & Wilson 

C.  A.  Lull 

N.  Y.  Moris  & Son 

Jamestown  Worsted  Mills 

Troy  Manufacturing  Co 

J.  J.  Joslin 

Riverside  Knitting  Mills . . . 

Cornelius  N.  Bliss 

W.  A.  Hardee 

John  P.  Doane 

Newman  & Adams 

Harris  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany. 

Allen  Preston  & Co 

Morris  Mark 

Hathaway  & Roynolds 

James  Taylor 

Walter  F.  Keefer 

Globe  Woolen  Co 

McLaclilan,  Conde  &.  Co  . . . 

Armstrong,  Baker  & Co 

G.  M.  Rockwells  & Co  

William  Moore 

W.  A.  Harder 

Nelson  Miller 

Herkimer  Knitting  Mills . . . 

Charles  Dawson 

Merchants’  Woolen  Com- 
pany. 

Norfolk  Mills 

P.  E.  Wall,  agent 

Globe  Yarn  Mills 

A.  E.  Smith 

S.  Blackinton  Woolen  Com- 
pany. 

Abbott  & Co. 

Assabet  Manufacturing 
Company. 

J.  R.  Scott  & Co 

Kingston  Knitting  Com- 
pany. 

Stephen  P.  Day 

Niantic  Hosiery  Company . 

Albert  E.  Parish  

Pierre  Ryan 

Richard  Sayles  & Co 

James  A.  Stevens  & Co 

John  Walsh  & Sons 

William  E.  Hayward  & Co. 

Sol.  F.  Cushman 

James  Dugdale 

Andrew  Howarth  & Son... 
Hamilton  Woolen  Company 
Hamilton  Woolen  Company 


Troy,  N.  Y. 
Brookton,  N.  Y. 

Philmont,  N.  Y. 
West  Troy,  N.  Y. 
Wegatchie,  N.  Y. 
Sand  Lake,  N.  Y. 
Newburgh,  N.  Y. 
Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 
Cohoes,  N.  Y. 
Oriskany,  N.  Y. 
Mechanicsville,  N.  Y. 
Arcade,  N.  Y. 
Brookton,  N.  Y. 
Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 
Jamestown,  N.  Y. 
Cohoes,  N.  Y. 
Schaghticoke,  N.  Y. 
Cohoes,  N.  Y. 

New  York,  N.  Y. 
Troy,  N.  Y. 

Phoenix  Mills,  N.  Y. 
Cohoes,  N.  Y. 
Catskill,  N.  Y. 

Jamestown,  N.  Y. 
Herkimer,  N.  Y. 
Oriskany  Falls,  N.  Y. 
Newburgh,  N.  Y. 
Camillus,  N.  Y. 
Utica,  N.  Y. 
Schenectady,  N.  Y. 
New  Hartford,  N.  Y. 
Dryden,  N.  Y. 
Cohoes,  N.  Y. 

Troy,  N.  Y. 
Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 
Herkimer,  N.  Y. 
Holden,  Mass. 
Boston,  Mass. 

Dedham,  Mass. 
Hampden,  Mass. 

Fall  River,  Mass. 

C berry  V all  ey,  Mass. 
No  Adams,  Mass. 

Graniteville,  Mass. 
Boston,  Mass. 

Uxbridge,  Mass. 
Boston,  Mass. 

Rowe,  Mass. 

Boston,  Mass. 
Hinsdale,  Mass,. 
Holden,  Mass. 
Uxbridge,  Mass. 
Ware,  Mass. 

Lowell,  Mass. 

East  Douglas,  Mass. 
Monson,  Mass. 
Lowell,  Mass. 

Oxford,  Mass. 
Amesbury,  Mass. 
Southbridge,  Mass. 


332  REPOKT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Name. 


Place. 


Name. 


Place. 


Jolm  Ken  worthy 

B.  W.  Gleason  & Son 

Talbot  Mills 

L.  Pomroys’  Sons 

Howe  & Jefferson 

Fitchburg  Worsted  Com- 
pany. 

George  Whitney 

P.  Scott  & Son 

Alexander  Lyons 

Way  & Kimball 

Saxonville  Mills 

Wicks  Manufacturing 
Company. 

J.  L.  Peck 

Beebe.  Webber  & Co 

Nonantum  Worsted  Com- 
pany. 

N.  E.  Bunting  Co 

B.  M.  & Theo.  Reynolds 

,1  ohn  F.  Heesy  & Bro 

James  Phillips 

George  P.  Ladd 

Fair  Alpaca  Company 

Arlington  Mills ' 

Manchester  Mills 

George H.  Gilbert 

E.  D.  Thayer,  jr 

John  Chase  & Son 

Oriental  Worsted  Mills 

C.  A.  & S.  M.  Wheelock. . . . 

Aetna  Mills 

Bays  Woolen  Company 

E.  W.  Chapin  & Co 

Otter  River  Company 

City  Mills  Company 

AVilliam  James  Hogg  ...... 

Conrides  South  worth 

Edward  M Rockwell 

J.  P.  Bradley 

W . C.  Harding  & Co 

Hockanum  Company 

Sayles  & Washburn 

The  Sabin  L.  Sayles  Com- 
pany. 

The  New  England  Company 

B.  F.  Schofield 

T.  E.  Hopkins 

Theo.  Bird  & Co 

Kenyon  Brothers 

E.  E'.  Hilliard  & Co 

L.  M.  Heery  & Co 

Medlicott  Company 

The  Rock  Manufacturing 
Company. 

Hartford  Carpet  Company 

XT  nion  Manufacturing  C om- 
pany. 

Warren  Woolen  Company  . 

River  Mills 

Hope  Company 

Meriden  Woolen  Mills 

Mystic  Woolen  Mills 

Home  Company 

Glastonbury  Knitting  Com- 
pany. 

Putnam  Woolen  Company. 
Somersville  Manufactur- 
ing Company.  * 

The  Riverside  Woolen 
Companv. 

A.  L.  Clark 

Phoenix  Woolen  Company . 
The  Lounsburg  and  Bis- 
sell  Company. 

Charles  F.  Sweet 

A.  H.  & B.  Ailing 

James  Legg  & Co 


Hampden,  Mass. 
Rock  Bottom,  Mass. 
Billerica,  Mass. 
Pittsfield,  Mass. 
Jeffersonville,  Mass. 
Fitchburg,  Mass. 

South  Royalston, 
Mass. 

Saugus,  Mass. 
Highlandville,  Mass. 
South  Walpole,  Mass. 
Boston,  Mass. 
Worcester,  Mass. 

Pittsfield,  Mass. 
Holyoke,  Mass. 
Boston,  Mass. 

Lowell,  Mass. 
Monson,  Mass. 

Do. 

Fitchburg,  Mass. 
Spencer,  Mass. 
Holyoke.  Mass. 
Boston,  Mass. 

Do. 

Ware,  Mass. 
Leicester,  Mass. 
Webster,  Mass. 
Millsville,  Mass. 
TJxbriilge,  Mass. 
Watertown,  Mass. 
North  Billingham, 
Mass. 

Northborough,  Mass. 
Templeton,  Mass. 
Norfolk,  Mass 
Worcester,  Mass. 
Stoughton,  Mass. 
Leominster,  Mass. 
Ballardvale,  Mass. 
Stamford,  Conn. 
Rockville,  Conn. 
Mechanicsville,Conn. 
Killingly,  Conn. 

Rockville,  Conn. 
Montville,  Conn. 
Danielsonville,  Conn. 
Bethlehem,  Conn. 
Woodstock,  Conn. 
Manchester,  Conn. 
Versailles,  Conn. 
Windsor  Locks, 
Conn. 

Rockville,  Conn. 

Thompsonville, 

Conn. 

Torrington,  Conn. 

Stafford  Springs, 
Conn. 

• Do. 

Staffordville,  Conn. 
Meriden,  Conn. 
Mystic,  Conn. 
Staffordville,  Conn. 
Glastonbury,  Conn. 

Putnam,  Conn. 
Somersville,  Conn. 

Stafford,  Conn. 

Manchester,  Conn. 
Stafford,  Conn. 
Wiunipauk,  Conn. 

Hartford,  Conn. 
Birmingham,  Conn. 
Pascoag,  R.  I. 


Sayles  & Nichols 

J.  T.  Frisbey,  jr 

William  A.  Inman 

Whipple  & Wailing 

William  Tinkum  Company 

J.  O.  Inman 

Westerly  Woolen  Company 

W.  R.  Wells 

W.  A.  Walton  & Co 

Richard  Howard  & Son 

Glendale  Woolen  Company . 
Peter  Gillevan 

D.  Goff  & Sons 

Perseverance  Worsted 

Company. 

Kent  Woolen  Company 

William  Gregory 

Phoenix  Woolen  Company  . 

George  H.  Tyler  & Co 

Valley  Worsted  Mills 

Perce  Brothers 

Providence  Worsted  Mills . 

Sawyer  Woolen  Mills 

Tilton  & Goodall 

John  Collins 

Dexter  Richards  & Sons 

E.  H.  Pearson 

Frank  P.  Holt 

Gonic Manufacturing  Com- 
pany. 

E.  S.  Harris 

George  L.  Balcom 

A.  P.  Olzender 

Concord  Manufacturing 
Company. 

Contoocook  Mills  Company. 

Sam  Hodgson 

H.  Bailey 

Wolf  borough  Mills 

Kennidy  & Miller  Manu- 
facturing Company. 

Haile  & Frost  Manufac- 
turing Company. 
Hillsborough  Woolen  Mill 
Company. 

Samuel  N.  Pay  son 

E.  Colvin  & Son 

Burlington  Woolen  Com- 
pany. 

Ottapuchu  Woolen  Com- 
pany. 

William  Dillon 

Hayward,  Taft  & Co 

Gaysville  Manufacturing 
Company. 

Isaac  L.  Pearl  & Co 

J.  Gould  &.  Son 

F.  L.  Mackenzie 

H.  E.  Bradford  & Co 

George  Rockwood  & Co  ... 
Bound  Brook  Woolen  Mills. 
Passaic  Woolen  Company  . 
Norfolk  and  New  Bruns- 
wick Hosiery  Company. 

Dundee  Woolen  Company  . 
Somerset  Manufacturing 
Company. 

Radian  Woolen  Mills 

Elkhart  Knitting  Company 

W.  A.  Hedden  & Co 

Moorhouse  Bros 

Seymour  Woolen  Factory 
Company. 

New  Albany  Woolen  Mills 
Goshen  Woolen  Mills  Com- 
pany. 

Wyman  & Marks 

W.  Test  & Bro 

King  & Fildes 


Pascoag,  R.  I. 
Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 


Westerly,  R.  I. 

Asha  way,  R.  I. 
Richmond  Switch,  R. 
I. 

Apponaug,  R.  I. 
Glendale,  R.  I. 
Mohegan,  R.  I. 
Pawtucket,  R.  I. 
Woonsocket,  R.  I. 

Centreville,  R.  I. 
Wickford,  R.  I. 

East  Greenwich,  R.  I. 
Washington,  R.  I. 
Providence,  R.  I. 
Phenix,  R.  I. 
Providence,  R.  I. 
Dover,  N.  H. 
Littleton,  N.  H. 
Gibson,  N.  H. 
Newport,  N.  H. 
Epping,  N.  H. 
Laconia,  N.  H. 

Gonic,  N.  H. 

Penacook,  N.  H. 
Claremont,  N.  H. 
Manchester,  N.  H. 
West  Concord,  N.  H. 

Hillsborough  Bridge, 
N.  H. 

Meredith  Village,  N. 
H. 

Claremont,  N.  H. 
South  Wolf  borough, 
N.  H. 

Portsmouth,  N.  H. 

Hinsdale,  N.  H. 

Hillsboro’  Bridge,  N. 
H. 

Goff’s  Falls,  N.  H. 
Pawlet,  Vt. 
Winooski,  Vt. 

North  Hartland,  Vt. 

Springfield,  Vt. 
Proctorsville,  Vt. 
Gaysville,  Vt. 

Johnson,  Vt. 
Gouldsville,  Vt. 
Bridgewater,  Vt. 
Bennington,  Vt. 

Do. 

Bound  Brook,  N J. 
Passaic,  N.  J. 

New  Brunswick, N.  J. 

Passaic,  N.  J. 
Raritan,  N.  J. 

Do. 

Elkhart,  Ind. 

N ew  Albany,  Ind. 
Blairsville,  Ind. 
Seymour,  Ind. 

New  Albany,  Ind. 
Goshen,  Ind. 

Wabash,  Ind. 
Richmond.  Ind. 

La  Porte,  Ind. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


333 


Name. 


Place. 


Name. 


Place. 


Amazon  Hoisery  Company. 

Peru  Woolen  Mills 

Beatty  & Co 

Danville  Woolen  Mills 

L.  G.  McCulloh 

Lacon  Woolen  Manufact- 
uring Company. 
American  Woolen  Com- 
pany. 

Rushville  Shawl  Mills 

Grieves,  Halsey  & Co 

A.  H.  Baker  & Co 

Springfield  Woolen  Mills  . . 

Joseph  C.  Eveleth  ...  

Lewis,  Anderson  & Co 

Robert  Dobson  & Co 

Sanford  Mills 

Knox  Woolen  Company  . . . 
Newichawanich  Company 
Madison  Woolen  Company. 
Brown  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany. 

Pondicherry  Company 

Mayo  & Son 

Cascade  Woolen  Company. 
J . W.  & C.  W.  Springfield  . . 

D.  Cowan  & Co 

The  Yassalborough  Woolen 
Mills. 

Sanford  Mills 

Piscataquis  Woolen  Mills  . 

W.  T.  Parkam 

Robert  Eastwood 

Allen  Wright 

N ational  Knitting  Company 

W.  P.  Hewitt  & Co 

The  Woolen  Manufactur- 
ing Company. 

Monticello  Woolen  Com- 


Michigan City,  Ind. 
Peru,  Ind. 
Mishawaka,  Ind. 
Danville,  111. 
Kankakee,  111. 
Lacon,  111. 

Barry,  111. 

Rushville,  HI. 

Lacon,  111. 

Fairfield,  111. 
Springfield,  HI. 
Hampden,  Me. 
Skowhegan,  Me. 
Pittsfield,  Me. 
Sanford,  Me. 
Camden,  Me. 

South  Berwick,  Me. 
Madison,  Me. 

Dover,  Me. 

Bridgeton,  Me. 
Foxcroft,  Me. 
Oakland,  Me. 

Alfred,  Me. 
Lewiston,  Me. 
North  Y assalbor- 
ough,  Me. 

Sanford,  Me. 
Guilford,  Me. 
Maryville,  Tenn. 
Conyersville,  Tenn. 
Dowelltown,  Tenn. 
Milwaukee,  Wis. 
Menasha,  Wis. 
Beaver  Dam,  Wis. 

Monroe,  Wis. 


pany. 

Island  Woolen  Company  . . 
Cedarburg  Woolen  Mills . . . 

Blake  & Co  . 

Genesee  Woolen  Mills 

Jefferson  Woolen  Mills 

R.  A.  Patton 

Maysville  Woolen  Mills ... 

Walter,  Feltner  & Co 

The  Barnsville  Manufact- 
uring Company. 

The  Branceton  Mills 

James  Tonge 

Jonesville  Woolen  Mills  . . . 

Clark  Bros 

Vassar  Woolen  Company. . 
La  Grange  Knitting  Mills  . 

Franklin  Fisher 

Adler  & Co 

Saint  Mary  Woolen  Man- 
ufacturing Company. 
Lockland  Woolen  Mills  . . 

The  F.  Gray  Company 

Backus  & Kingsley 

Joseph  & J.  W.  Gledhill . . . 
Henry  Fox  & Co 

L.  Richardson  & Co 

Eclipse  Woolen  Mills 

Missouri  Woolen  Mills 

William  Ziock 

The  Buell  Manufacturing 

Company. 

George  Boomer 

W an  ensburg  Woolen  Mills 
Cain  Bros.  & Hutchinson  .. 
Davenport  Woolen  Mills  . . 

P.  N.  & N.  E.  Woods 

C.  H.  Lewis  

Holstein  Woolen  Mills 

Kiamensi  W oolen  Company 

M.  Bettinger 

Provo  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany. 


Baraboo,  Wis. 
Cedarburg,  Wis. 
Racine,  Wis. 
Genesee,  Wis. 
Jefferson,  Wis. 
Second  Creek,  W.  Ya. 
Maysville,  W.  Ya. 
Webster,  W.  Ya. 
Barnsville,  W.  Ya. 

Branceton,  W.  Ya. 
Salem,  W.  Ya. 
Jonesville,  Mich. 
Lowell,  Mich. 
Yassar,  Mich. 

La  Grange,  Mich. 
Shanesville,  Ohio. 
Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
Saint  Mary’s  Ohio. 

Lockland,  Ohio. 
Piqua,  Ohio. 

New  Bremen,  Ohio. 
Ravenna,  Ohio. 
Hrbana,  Ohio. 
Louisville,  Ky. 

Do. 

Carthage,  Mo. 

Saint  Charles,  Mo. 
Saint  Joseph,  Mo. 

Mexico,  Mo. 

W arrensburg,  Mo. 
Sedalia,  Mo. 
Davenport,  Iowa. 
Fairfield,  Iowa. 
Good  sen,  Ya. 
Holstein  Mills,  Ya. 
Stanton,  Del. 

Tell  City,  Md. 

Provo  City,  Utah. 


Edmund  Buckley 

L.  Farr  & Son 

Oregon  City  Manufactur- 
ing Company. 

Ashland  Woolen  Mills 

New  Braunfels  Woolen 
Mills. 

Macon  Knitting  Company . 

C.R.  Brown 

S.  Haight  & Co 

Hutchinson  & Ogden 

E.  L.  Barber 

Edward  Clegg 

Thompson  Brothers  

C.  H.  Amsbry 

Zerby  & Webb 

John  F.  Lodge 

William  Curry 

Joseph  Haigti  & Son 

Samuel  Bryrom 

James  Kitcheman 

John  McArthur 

Thomas  Jaggers 

Alexander  Crow  & Son 

Beaver  Mills  (limited) 

John  Blood  & Co 

Wm.  W.  Whitaker  & Sons  . 
Samuel  Byrom 

L.  R.  Heathcote  & Co 

John  S.  Bryan 

Thomas  Clarkson 

Youngman  Bros 

Daniel  Artrnan 

Jos.  E.  Noble 

Osier  & Fleming 

Ross  & Pryor 

William  Thornton 

Sami.  B.  Hilliei^ 

Ivins.  Dietz  &Magee 

S.  C..  Jtedpath 

J ames  Bole 

Joel  Brierley  

Newsame  & Fawcett 

Booth  & Bro 

Hughes  & Kay 

William  Scholes  & Son 

John  McClain 

Harvey  Lamb 

Berwick  & Kay 

N.  F.  Gibbony 

Wm.  B.  Taylor  & Son 

William  Johnson 

S.  Lawton  & Co 

John  Sutliff 

Forbis  Bros 

Spr  in  gfield  W oolen  Mill  Co. 

A.  J.  Williams 

O wings  & Wattenberger. . . 

Marcella  Falls  W oolen  Mills 

B.  F.  Stephens  & Bro 

Jackson  Woolen  Manufact- 
uring Company. 

Home  Woolen  Company  . . . 
J.  S.  McElhoes 

M.  M.  Nulty  & Bros 

Parker  Bowman  & Co 

J.  Chapman 

Badger  Knitting  Company. 
Carolina  Mills  Company. . . 
Blackstone  Woolen  Com- 


Brigham City,  Utah. 
Ogden  City,  Utah. 
Oregon  City,  Or  eg. 

Ashland,  Oreg. 

New  Braunfels,  Tex. 

Macon,  Ga. 
Greenville,  Pa. 
Bridgewater,  Pa. 
Manayunk,  Pa. 
Bridgeport,  Pa. 
Nicetown,  Pa. 
Milroy,  Pa. 
Camptown,  Pa. 
Allensville,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Slippery  Rock,  Pa. 
Le  Raysville,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Do. 

Norristown,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  ' 
Do. 

Downingtowo,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Do. 

Do. 

Glen  Rock,  Pa. 
Hughsville,  Pa. 
Faliston,  Pa. 

Antes  Fort,  Pa. 
Larry’s  Creek,  Pa. 
Waterside,  Pa. 
Forksville,  Pa. 
Clarksville,  Pa. 
Albion,  Pa. 
Cooperstown,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Do. 

Do. 

Germantown,  Pa. 
Brookville,  Pa. 
Roseylin,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Do. 

Washington,  Pa. 
Spartan  sburgh,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Belleville,  Pa. 
Lewiston,  Md. 

Bay  Yiew,  Md. 
Oakland,  Md. 

Yates,  Mo. 

Do. 

Springfield,  Mo. 
Glenwood,  Mo. 

Post  Oak  Springs, 
Tenn. 

Columbia,  Tean. 
Greene ville,  Tenn. 
Jackson,  Tenn. 

Home,  Tenn. 

Kelly sburg,  Tenn. 
Bristol,  Tenn. 
Buchanan,  W.  Ya. 
Watertown,  Wis. 
Milwaukee,  Wis. 
Carolina,  R.  I. 
Waterford,  R.  I. 


pany. 

Haines  Woolen  Company. . 
British  Hosiery  Company. . 
Lymansville  Company. . . 

Bradford  Manufacturing 
Company. 

Rodman  Manufac  t u r i n g 
Company. 

Hudsfelt  & Smith 

Potter,  James  &Co ... 


Woonsocket,  R.  T. 
Thornton,  R.  I. 
North  Providence, 
R.I. 

Woonsocket,  R.  I. 

La  Fayette,  R.  I. 

Mayfield,  Ky. 
Bowling  Green,  Ky. 


334  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY; 


Uame. 


Place. 


name. 


Place. 


Reynolds  & Taylor 

Joshua  Woodh’ead 

Louisville  Woolen  Mills 

James  Cato 

Beargrass  Woolen  Mills  . . . 

George  Merritt  & Co 

J.  S.  Scott 

Eagle  Knitting  Company  . . 

G.F.  Ellis  

Birch  & Brother 

R.  S.  Glass  & Co 

Eel  River  Woolen  Mill 

Company. 

John  Allen  & Co 

J.  P.  Wigal  & Co 

Ward  and  Snvder 

S.  B.  Harris  . 

Shuler  and  Benninghofer  . . 

Dodd  Brothers 

J.  & H.  Clasgens 

John  Corbett  

William  McElroy 

Wright  & Thomas 

Dennis  Clark 

J.  S.  Ellifritz  & Co 

Bush  & McVay 

William  Rutledge 

T. A.  Culbartson 

Humming  Woolen  Mills... 

J.  E.  Lenii 

J.  E.  Tritsch 

Dennison  Walker 

Saco  River  Woolen  Com- 
pany. 

Archibald  Linn 

Harper  Manufacturing 
Company. 

Robinson  Manufacturing 
Company. 

D.  H.  Bufiin’s  Sons 

North  Berwick  Company  . . 

J.  L.  H.  Cobb  & Co 

J.  W.  Bresiel  & Co 

A.  M.  Dodge .• 

A.  S.  Ballantyne 

A.  H.  Norris  & Co 

John  Fletcher 

Great  Falls  Woolen  Com- 
pany. 

N.  G.  Johnson 

Gilsum  Woolen  Manufact- 
uring Company. 

J.  Radcliffe  & Son 

Daniel  Curtiss’  Sons  

Joseph  Mullen,  agent 

Crosby  Manufacturing 
Company. 

Broad  Brook  Company 

Peel  & Swindelle  - 

Benjamin  F.  Taylor 

Hill  Knitting  Company 

New  Britain  Knitting  Com- 


Glasgow,  Ky. 
Falmouth,  Ky. 
Louisville,  Ky. 
Ramsey,  Ky. 
Louisville,  Ky. 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Ontario,  Ind. 
Elkhart,  Ind. 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 
Greencastle,  Ind. 
Columbia  Citv,  Ind. 
Do. 

Michigan  City,  Ind. 
Quincy,  Ind. 
Monticello.  Ind. 
Ellettsville,  Ind. 
Hamilton,  Ohio. 
Willoughby,  Ohio. 
New  Richmond, 
Ohio. 

Bellville,  Ohio. 
Mohicanville,  Ohio. 
Springborough,  Ohio. 
London,  Ohio. 
Hillsborough,  Ohio. 
Caldwell,  Ohio. 

West  Milton,  Ohio. 
Greenville,  Ohio. 
Celina,  Ohio. 

Wilmot,  Ohio. 

Logan,  Ohio. 
Pittsfield,  Me. 

West  Buxton,  Me. 

Hartland,  Me. 
Welchville,  Me. 

Oxford,  Me. 

Acton,  Me. 

North  Berwick,  Me. 
Lewiston,  Me. 
Laconia,  N.  H. 

Tilton,  N.  H. 

Do. 

Epping,  N.  H. 

Tilton,  N.  H. 

Great  Falls,  N.  H. 

Wilmot,  N.  H. 

Gilsum,  N.  H. 

Long  Hill,  Conn. 
Woodbury,  Conn. 
Stafford  Springs, 
Conn. 

East  Glastonbury, 
Conn. 

Broad  Brook,  Conn. 
Stafford,  Conn. 
Norwalk,  Conn.. 
Ansonia,  Conn. 

New  Britain,  Conn. 


panv. 

Winsted  Hosiery  Company. 
Greenmanville  Manufactur- 
ing Company. 

Ambrose  Reynolds 

Talcott  Bros 

Union  Woolen  Company. .. 

Joseph  W.  Bentley 

Bristol  Manufacturing 
Company. 

C.  F.  Schofield 

Union  Manufacturing 
Company. 

James  K.  Kegan 

Solomon,  Barber  & Co 


Winsted,  Conn. 
Mystic  Bridge,  Conn. 

Greenville,  Conn. 
Talcottville,  Conn. 
HotcMdssville,  Conn. 
Huntington,  Conn. 
Bristol,  Conn. 

Montville,  Conn. 
Norwalk,  Conn. 

Rockville,  Conn. 
Laurel  Glenn,  Conn. 


J.  M.  Wood 

John  Cochrane,  jr 

Merrimack  Woolen  Mills.. 
United  States  Bunting 
Company. 

Minot  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany. 

Dudley  Hosiery  Company. 

Wm.  Carter  & Co 

Frederick  Ayer 

George  C.  Moore 

Edgeworth  Mill 

Nathaniel  E.  Taft 

E. Shaw  

Aken  & Taylor 

Hinsdale  Brothers 

Evans,  Segrave  & Co 

Josiah  Perry 

French  <fc  Ward 

Wilson,  Glumon  & Co 

Highland  Mills 

B.  L.  Morrison  & Son 

Draper  Brothers 

Butler  & Robinson 

Holliston  Mills 

Keeler  Manufacturing  Corn- 


South  C 4 v entry, 
Conn. 

Malden,  Mass. 
Dracut,  Mass. 
Lowell,  Mass. 

Enfield,  Mass. 

N ewton  .Lower  Falls, 
Mass. 

Highlandville,  Mass. 
Lawrence,  Mass. 
North  Chelmsford, 
Mass. 

Worcester,  Mass. 
North  Oxford,  lifass. 
Wales,  Mass. 
Charlton  City,  Mass. 
Hinsdale,  Mass. 
Waterford,  Mass. 
Dudley,  Mass. 
Stoughton,  Mass. 
Pittsfield,  Mass. 
Huntington,  Mass. 
Braintree,  Mass. 
Canton,  Mass. 
Lawrence,  Mass. 
Holliston,  Mass. 
Needham,  Mass. 


pany. 

Star  Worsted  Company 

Jessie  Eddy’s  Sons  . . .' 

Damon  Manufa  c t u r i n g 
Company. 

Porter  Ernest 

Riley  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany. 

Henry  S.  Lahee 

Standish  Mills 

Forbes  Woolen  Company.. 


Germania  Mills 

Frederick  Elliott 

E.  Delabarre  & Co 

Josiah  Barber  & Sons 

F.  M.  Green  & Sons 

McCowatt  & Dean 

Joseph  Broadhead 

N.  T.  Kane 

Dean  & Yisscher 

Schenectady  Knitting  Com- 
pany. 

Kinderhook  Knitting  Com- 


pany. 

Diamond  Knitting  Mills  . . . 
Gleason  Knitting  and  Man- 
ufacturing Company. 

A.  G.  Randall 

Ira  Wheeler  & Son 

Ransom  & White 

J.  R.  & J.  H.  Perkins 

H.  J.  McCune 

R.  & H.  Newland 

Empire  Woolem  Company. . 

Thomas  Pittingill 

Gilbert  Collins 

Camden  Knitting  Mills 

Root  & Waterman  -. 

Huyck  & Argersinger 

Milo  N.  Bradley 

Daniel  M.  Reddish 


H.  J.  McCune 

Boyd  & Lippell 

Nyer  & Wait 

Rich  & Sufford 

Theodore  Hayden 

Marcullns  & McFarland  . . . 
Prentiss  & Butler 


Fitchburg,  Mass. 
Fall  River,  Mass. 
Concord,  Mass. 

Boston,  Mass. 
Lowell,  Mass. 

Hingham,  Mass. 
Plymouth,  Mass. 
East  Brookfield 
Mass. 

Holyoke,  Mass. 
Watertown,  Mass. 
Conway,  Mass. 
Auburn,  N.  Y. 
Cropsey  ville,  N.  Y. 
Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 
Cornwall,  N.  Y. 
Averell  Park,  N.  Y. 
Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 
Schenectady,  N.  Y. 

Kinderhook,  N.  Y. 

Waterford,  N.  Y. 
Seneca  Falls,  N.  Y, 

Burtonsville,  N.  Y. 
Purdy ’sStation,N.Y. 
Sandy  Hill,  N.  Y. 
Riverhead,  N.  Y. 
Troy,  N.  Y. 
Stillwater,  N.  Y. 
Utica.,  N.  Y. 
Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 
Martinsburg,  N.  Y. 
Camden,  N.  Y. 
Cohoes,  N.  Y. 
Albany,  N.  Y. 
Richniondville,  N.  Y. 
North  Broadalbin, 
N.  Y. 

Troy,  N.  Y. 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 
Auburn,  N.  Y. 
Brasher  Falls,  N.  Y. 
Sandusky,  N.  Y. 
Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 
New  York,  N.  Y. 


KEVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


335 


Name. 


E.  G.  Munson . 

P.  E.  Johnson 

Crane  & Chapins 

Erisbie  & Stansfield 

Salisbury  Woolen  Mills 

Gwyn  & Chatham 

S.  B.  Wilkins  Company... 
Bock  ford  Woolen  Mills 
Company. 

G.  H.  White 

Reeves  & Hitch 

Stratton,  Eurguson  &Co.. 

J.  F.  Jackson 

Piasa  Woolen  Mill  Com- 
pany. 

William  Veitch 

Capital  City  Woolen  Mills. 
Kent,  Tates  & Callaghan.. 
Stone,  Atwood  & Co 

R.  A.  Robinson  & Co 

Hay  & Todd  Manufactur- 
ing Company.  • 

Solomon  Wright 

E.  E.  Ashworth 

A.  G.  Dewey 

J.  & J.  G.  Dow. .....  ...... 

Slayden  Kirksey  Woolen 
Mills. 

Porter  Manufacturing 
Company. 

William  Skelton  & Son 

Camden  Manufacturing 
Company. 

Home  Manufacturing  Co  . . 

Guilford  Woolen  Mills 

Madison  Woolen  Company. 
Winthrop  Mill  Company  . . 

Allen,  Lane  & Co 

A.  A.  Thompson  

W.  H.  Eaunce  & Co 

George  E.  Buell  & Co 

Gonic  Manufacturing  Co  .. 

Waunbek  Company 

J.  W.  Busiel  & Co 

Cocheca  Woolen  Manu- 
facturing Company. 

John  D.  Sturtevant,  agent  . 

Carter  & Rogers 

J.  S.  Gill  & Co 

J.  C.  Parker  & Co 

James  Roberts 

Ira  F.  Haines 

E.  C.  Smith 

Wright  Manufacturing  Co. 

Sayles  & Jenks 

Keeler  Manufacturing  Co. . 
Bay  State  Felt  Boot  and 
Shoe  Company. 

C.  B.  Snyder  & Co 

Agawam  Company 

Church  Bros.  & Co 

James  McTaggat,  jr 

E.  B.  Smith’s  estate 

Plymouth  Woolen  Co 

Calumet  Woolen  Co 

George  Naylor 

D.  F.  Wood 

W.  F.  Ray 

E.  B.  Ray 

Peter  Sampson 

Lakeside  Manufacturing 

Company. 

Austin  W.  Ward 

P.  G.  Kent  & Co 

Sterling  Mills 

Belvidere  Wool  Manufact- 
uring Company. 

S.  J.  Smith  & Co' 

W.  S.  & E Cordingley 


Place. 


Name. 


Place. 


Waterford,  N.  T. 
Paterson,  N.  J. 

Do. 

Jersey  City,  N.  J. 
Salisbury,  N.  C. 
Elkin,  N.  C. 

Rockford,  HI. 

Do. 

Olney,  HI. 
Bloomington,  HI. 
Mount  Vernon,  111. 
Cedar  Hill,  111. 

Alton,  111. 

Sigourney,  Iowa. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa. 
Kent’s  Mills,  Va. 
Flint,  Mich. 

Cass  City,  Mich. 
Ypsilanti,  Mich. 

Pownal,  Vt. 
Hartland,  Vt. 
Quechee,  Vt. 
Hinesburgh,  Vt. 
Waco,  Texas. 

Clarksville,  Ga. 

Eugene  City,  Oreg. 
Camden,  Ark. 

Lewiston,  Me. 
Guilford,  Me. 
Madison,  Me. 
Winthrop,  Me. 
Warren,  Me. 

Freedom,  Me. 
Ellsworth,  Me. 

Tilton,  N.  H. 
Rochester,  N.  H. 
Milton  Mills,  N.  H. 
Laconia,  N.  H. 
Rochester,  N.  H. 

Do. 

Ashland,  N.  H. 
Ludlow,  Vt. 

Queehee,  Vt. 

Ludlow,  Vt. 

Cabot,  Vt. 

Worcester,  Mass. 
Lawrence,  Mass. 
Warren,  Mass. 
Needham,  Mass. 
Merrimac,  Mass. 

Otter  River,  Mass. 
Agawam,  Mass. 
Middlefield,  Mass. 
West  Fitchburg  , 
Mass. 

Wilkinsonville,  Mass. 
Plymouth,  Mass. 
Uxbridge,  Mass. 
Lowell,  Mass. 
Northborough,Mass. 
Franklin,  Mass. 

Do. 

Millbury,  Mass. 
Worcester,  Mass. 

Do. 

Do. 

Lowell,  Mass. 

Do. 

Oakdale,  Mass. 

N ewton  Lower  Falls, 
Mass. 


Fred.  Thayer 

Henry  B.  Scudder.  

Swift  River  Company 

Tillotson  & Poweli 

Pontoorac  Wool  Manufact- 
uring Company. 

J.  D.  Clark  

George  Mann  & Bro  ...... 

Globe  Braid  Mills 

Thomas  Mabbett 

What  Cheer  Braid  Co .. . .. 
Lorraine  Manufacturing 
Company. 

Glenark  Knitting  Company 

G.  W.  Reynolds  & Co 

American  Hosiery  Co 

Clinton  Company 

John  D.  Sturtevant,  presi- 
dent, 

John  D.  Sturtevant,  presi- 
dent. 

J ames  Hoyle. 

Springfield  Manufacturing 
Company. 

W.  W.  Ken  worthy 

Bradley,  Hoyt  & Co 

George  T.  Murdock  & Son . 

R.  R.  Hooper  & Co 

Schuyler  & Blood 

Windsor  Woolen  Mills 

Jewel  Knitting  Mills 

J.  M.  Johnson 

William  Clark,  agent 

Parsons  Man’fg  Co 

H.  H.  Pawling 

WynantskillKnittingCo. . . 

Sheard  & Gibson  

Gilday  & Gillies 

Charles  Liddle 

Horrocks  & Van  Ben- 
thuysen. 

James  Brooks 

Neil  & McDowell  

Harder  Knitting  Company  . 

C.  Royer  & Sons 

Yewdall  & Jones  Bros 

ParkmountC.  and  W.  Co. . . 

Alex.  Beck  &Son 

Joseph  King  & Sons 

David  McDowell 

James  Bowen  Sons 

J.  G.  Irvin 

Henry  Gabriel 

Bowman  Bros  

William  Culbertson 

Birdsall  Brothers 

Jacob  Baker 

A.  R.  Gibboney  & Co 

John  Hill 

Empire  Mills 

William  Thornton 

W.  A.  Atwood  &Co 

Germantown  W oolen  Mills . 

Robert  Huston 

John  P.  Graham 

Rob.  Bole 

Burk  & Opp 

Graff  & Firth *... 

Thomas  Canes 

Chas.  F.  Chipman 

Bollomley,  Whiteley  & Co. 

Robert  Hall  & Son.' 

James  Galbraith 

John  Williams  & Sons 

H.  & D.  Henry 

Charles  Crankshaw 

Frank  S.  Chambers 

Jos.  M.  Adams 

A.  M.  Stead 


Millville,  Mass. 
Allston,  Mass. 
Enfield,  Mass. 
Pittsfield,  Mass. 

Do. 

Rochdale,  Mass. 
Lewiston,  Mass. 
Pawtucket,  R.  I. 
Providence,  R.  1. 

Do. 

Pawtucket,  R.  I. 

Woonsocket,  R.  I. 
Davisville,  R.  I. 

New  Britain,  Conn. 
Norwalk,  Conn. 
Norwich,  Conn. 

East  Lyme,  Conn. 

Willington,  Conn. 
Rockville,  Conn. 

Somers,  Conn. 

South  Britain,  Conn. 
New  Boston,  Conn. 
Montville,  Conn. 
Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 
Newburgh,  N.  Y. 
Valley  Falls,  N.  Y. 
Raymondville,  N.Y. 
Elmira,  N.  Y. 
Cohoes,  N.  Y. 
Hagaman’s  Mills, 
N.  Y. 

Troy,  N.  Y. 
Marlborough,  N.  Y. 
East  Greenwich, 
N.  Y. 

Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 
Cohoes,  N.  Y. 

Bellevale,  N.  Y. 
Cohoes,  N.  Y. 
Hudson,  N-  Y. 
Smithville,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Lenni  Mills,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Germantown,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Chester,  Pa. 

Oak  Hall,  Pa. 
Allentown,  Pa. 

East  Brook,  Pa, 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Honesdale,  Pa. 

New  Lexington,  Pa. 
Reedsville,  Pa. 
Curwensville,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Do. 

Germantown,  Pa. 
Do. 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Do. 

Kensington,  Pa. 
Clarkstown,  Pa. 
Worthington,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Germantown,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Chester,  Pa. 
Hancock,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Do. 

Frankford,  Pa. 
Marion,  Pa. 
Manayunk,  Pa. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 


336  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Name. 


Place. 


Name. 


Place. 


Glenmore  Worsted  Com- 
pany, limited. 

W m.  Preston  & Co 

A.  J.  Bronnbach 


Philadelphia,  Pa.. 

Boyertown,  Pa. 
Saint  Lawrence  Mill, 
Pa. 


Hart,  Haesha  & Co 

Liston  Bros 

John  Daniels 

Mallory  & McElroy 

Bobbins  Bros.  & Co 

L.  Bambo  & Co 

B.  Young  & Co 

B.  Bennet 

Johny  Stickler 

Jos.  E.  Stickler. 

A.  C.  Staley  & Sons 

D.  Bodibough  &■  Son 

Geo.  Merritt  & Co 

South  Bend  Woolen  Co 

Jacob  Lattner 

Meek  Bros  

Nashua  Union  Woolen 
Mills. 

Hobson  & Harvey  — 

Broughton  Bros 

Carthage  W oolen  Mill  Co . . . 


Canonsburg,  Pa. 
Listonburg,  Pa. 
Stafford,  Ohio. 
Bacine,  Ohio. 
Canton,  Ohio. 
Dresden,  Ohio. 
Georgetown,  Ohio. 
West  Milton,  Ohio. 
Newville,  Ohio. 

Do. 

South  Bend,  Ind. 
New  Paris,  Ind. 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 
South  Bend,  Ind. 
Lattner’s,  Iowa. 
Bonaparte,  Iowa. 
Nashua,  Iowa. 

Pleasant  Plains, 
Iowa. 

Paris,  Mo. 

Carthage,  Mo. 


City  W oolen  Mill  Company 
Appleton  Woolen  Mills 

M.  Fibridge,  Smith  & Co  . . 

Thomas  Wells 

La  Crosse  Hosiery  Co 

John  Kelly 

Otto  Bodmer 

Barron  Woolen  Mills  Co  . . . 

N.  B.  Jordan  & Son 

Mountain  City  Woolen 

Mills. 

Olympia  Manufacturing 


Joplin,  Mo. 
Appleton,  Wis. 
Beaver  Dam,  Wis. 
Neshboro,  Wis. 

La  Crosse,  Wis. 
Oakley,  Wis. 

Bangor,  Wis. 

Barron,  Wis. 
Botherwood,  Tenn. 
McMinnville,  Tenn. 

Olympia,  Va. 


Senior  & Furbee 

J.  W.  Markwood 

E.  B.  Fairchild 

California  Hosiery  Company 

J.  G.  Stolp ... 

Bockford  Mitten  and  Ho- 
siery Company. 

Wanita  Woolen  Mills 

W.  E.  & B.  L.  Bosworth 

Bag  Fabric  Co 

Perry  Knitting  Co 

Bochester  Woolen  Mill  Co. 

C.L.  Torr 


Mannington,  W.  Ya. 
Bidgeville,  W.  Ya. 
Whippany,  N.  J. 
Oakland,  Cal. 
Aurora,  111. 
Bockford,  111. 

Wanita  Mills,  Miss. 
Lexington,  Ky. 
Franklin,  Mass. 
Perry,  N.  Y. 
Bochester,  Ind. 
Petaluma,  Cal. 


[The  National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers.] 

RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  ADMINISTRATIVE  TARIFF  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Boston,  June , 1885. 

Hod.  Daniel  Manning,* 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  : 

Sir  : The  position  which  you  occupy  as  the  head  of  the  Treasury 
Department  identifies  you  more  closely  than  any  other  public  officer 
with  the  industrial  interests  of  the  country,  as  you  are  the  administra- 
tor of  the  revenue  laws,  which  so  materially  affect  those  interests,  and 
are  the  most  authoritative  source  of  recommendations  for  such  legisla- 
tion as  may  be  required  for  their  benefit. 

It  is  fortunate  that  some  of  the  most  important  questions  affecting 
these  interests  are  outside  of  the  domain  of  economical  theory  or  party 
prejudice,  and  that  in  considering  them  we  may  address  ourselves  to 
free  traders  or  protectionists,  to  Democrats  or  Republicans  alike,  and 
appeal  to  patriotism,  a sense  of  justice,  and  public  expediency,  which 
are  the  exclusive  possessions  of  no  school  or  party. 

Of  this  character  are  two  questions  which  have  received  the  earnest 
consideration  of  the  important  industrial  organization  which  I have  the 


* This  communication  was  personally  submitted  by  the  writer  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  and  its  substance  orally  explained.  It  was  received  with  great  court- 
esy, and  is  put  in  printed  form  at  his  special  request,  and  given  to  the  public  by 
his  authority. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


337 


honor  to  represent,  and  under  whose  instructions  this  communication  is 
submitted,  both  purely  questions  of  administration,  and  involving 
strictly  what  we  have  the  authority  for  believing  to  be  the  policy  of  the 
administration  with  which  you  are  connected — the  “application  of  busi- 
ness principles  in  public  affairs.”  These  are — 

I.  The  remedial  legislation  required  for  undervaluations  of  merchan- 
dise entered  at  our  custom-houses,  and  subject  to  ad  valorem  duties. 

II.  A reform  in  the  methods  of  determining  revenue  questions,  or, 
more  precisely,  the  classification  to  which  specific  articles  of  imported 
merchandise  should  be  assigned  for  payment  of  duty  under  existing  or 
future  revenue  laws. 

These  two  questions  are  submitted  to  you,  of  course,  with  a knowledge 
that  you  are  powerless  to  act  upon  them  without  the  intervention  of 
legislation,  but  with  the  hope  that  the  subject  being  brought  to  your 
attention,  the  required  legislation  may  result  from  these  suggestions 
when  followed  by  recommendations  to  Congress  confirmed  and  modi- 
fied by  your  experience  and  sanctioned  by  your  high  authority. 


I.  Remedy  for  undervaluations. 

The  existence  of  an  organized  and  wide  spread  system  of  undervalu- 
ations of  imported  merchandise  does  not  rest  upon  the  vague  or  inter- 
ested declarations  of  American  manufacturers,  but  is  established  by  the 
testimony  of  official  appraisers  theoretically  opposed  to  high  protective 
duties.  I assume  that  you  are  completely  informed  upon  this  point  by 
the  official  reports  submitted  by  the  officers  of  your  Department,  although 
a condensed  statement  of  testimony  taken  by  the  Tariff*  Commission 
upon  this  point  is  submitted  as  an  appendix  to  this  communication. 
Your  experience  must  have  already  convinced  you  that  no  effectual 
remedy  for  undervaluations  can  be  found  in  a more  vigorous  execution 
of  the  law.  This  was  the  conviction  of  one  of  your  most  eminent  pre- 
decessors, who  said  that  “it  is  no  reflection  upon  the  integrity  or  ability 
of  appraising  officers  to  say  that  they  are  unable,  unaided  by  penal 
laws,  to  cope  with  this  evil.”  If  I may  be  permitted  to  refer  to  my  ob- 
servations as  a member  of  the  Tariff  Commission,  I would  say  that  a 
most  earnest  consideration  of  this  subject  has  convinced  me  of  the  utter 
inadequacy  of  the  existing  laws  to  prevent  this  evil. 

The  views  impressed  upon  my  mind  and  upon  all  other  members  of 
the  Commission  by  the  personal  commucations  and  formal  testimony 
of  the  most  experienced  officers  of  the  customs  are  very  briefly  as  fol- 
lows : 

The  admitted  abuses  of  valuation  in  the  entry  of  imported  goods  so 
seriously  affect  the  interests  of  the  revenue  of  honest  importers  and  do- 
mestic manufacturers  that  further  legislation  to  remedy  these  abuses  is 
an  imperative  necessity.  Under  the  existing  law,  and  particularly  un- 
der the  provisions  of  the  anti-moiety  act  (section  16  of  the  law*  of  June 
22,  1874,  entitled  “An  act  to  amend  the  customs-revenue  laws  and  to 
repeal  moieties”),  by  which  the  Government  is  required  to  show  affirma- 
tively the  fraudulent  intent  of  the  importer  in  cases  of  alleged  under- 
valuation, there  is  no  possibility  of  effectual  proceedings  for  forfeiture 
of  goods  on  account  of  fraud  in  the  valuation,  as  the  intent  to  commit 


S.  Ex.  72 22 


338  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


fraud  cannot  be  proved.  The  only  existing  remedy  is  the  imposition  of 
a penalty  of  20  per  cent,  additional  duty  when  the  appraised  value  ex- 
ceeds by  10  per  cent,  the  value  declared  iu  the  entry.  This  penalty  is 
too  small  for  cases  of  actual  fraud,  and  too  large  for  error  of  judgment 
on  the  part  of  honest  but  inconsiderate  importers.  The  present  law  en- 
courages a general  system  of  undervaluation  within  the  range  of  10  per 
cent.,  as  there  is  no  penalty  unless  the  undervaluation  exceeds  that 
amount  5 whereas  each  experiment  in  undervaluation,  beyond  the  line 
of  a reasonable  difference  of  opinion,  ought  to  subject  the  importers  to 
a loss  proportionate  to  the  extent  of  undervaluation.  There  may  be 
honest  difference  of  opinion  as  to  values.  It  is  believed  that  the  ordinary 
range  of  honest  difference  of  opinion  as  to  values  will  not  exceed  5 per 
cent.  No  penalty  should  therefore  be  imposed  when  the  difference  does 
not  exceed  that  percentage.  There  should  be  imposed  a certain  though 
not  ruinous  penalty  for  every  experiment  beyond  that  line,  the  penalty 
increasing  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  the  undervaluation.  There 
should  be  an  adoption  in  the  law  of  a reasonable  criterion  of  presumptive 
fraud.  Such  a criterion  is  an  undervaluation  exceeding  15  per  cent.  This 
penalty  should  be  a forfeiture  of  the  particular  merchandise  so  under- 
valued, and  no  other.  There  should  be — whatis  not  found  in  the  existing 
law — provisions  for  relief  in  cases  of  mistake  or  clerical  error.  Such 
measures  should  have  in  view  the  protection  of  honest  but  inconsiderate 
importers  as  well  as  a certain  and  practical  remedy  for  undervaluations. 

A law  embodying  substantially  these  provisions,  it  is  believed,  would 
be  effectual  without  a resort  to  the  detective  system  for  discovering  fraud 
in  undervaluation,  as  recommended  by  one  of  your  predecessors.  Al- 
though intrinsically  there  can  be  no  moral  objections  to  the  use  of  de- 
tective measures  which  are  justified  in  ordinary  cases  of  criminal  frauds, 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  a system  of  detection  in  the  execution  of 
our  customs  laws,  which  would  make  the  administration  of  our  customs 
laws  unpopular,  and  thus  endanger  the  whole  system,  would  be  expe- 
dient. 

Without  dwelling  further  on  this  subject,  I earnestly  commend  to  your 
consideration  the  remedy  for  undervaluations  proposed  by  the  Tariff 
Commission,  and  the  reasons  therefor,  which  are  embodied  in  the  accom- 
panying letter  addressed  to  Hon.  Nelson  W.  Aldrich. 

II. — A CUSTOMS  TRIBUNAL.  * 

The  second  question  to  which  I beg  to  call  your  attention  is  the  de- 
sirableness of  a recommendation  by  you  to  Congress  of  the  establish- 
ment of  a customs  court,  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the 
classification  to  which  imported  articles  of  merchandise  should  be  as- 
signed for  payment  of  duties. 

That  the  present  system  is  defective  appears  to  be  universally  ad- 
mitted, and  your  own  experience  must  have  satisfied  you  of  the  great 
importance,  both  to  the  United  States  and  to  private  litigants,  that 
something  should  be  done  for  the  relief  of  your  own  Department,  the 
courts,  and  the  parties  interested  in  a proper  classification  of  imported 
goods  for  duty. 

This  question  has  received  very  careful  consideration  by  the  associa- 
tion which  I represent,  including 'both  manufacturers  and  merchants. 
The  subject  also  received  the  special  consideration  of  the  Tariff  Com- 
mission. The  judgment  of  the  special  committee  of  this  association  ap- 
pointed to  consider  this  subject  is  in  accordance  with  the  report  of  the 
Tariff' Commission,  which  recommended  a special  tribunal  or  custoujs 


REVISION  OE  THE  TARIFF. 


339 


court  for  determining  questions  of  classification.  I am  instructed, 
therefore,  to  commend  to  your  special  consideration  the  report  of  the 
Tariff  Commission  upon  this  subject,  page  42,  and  a bill  proposed  by 
that  commission,  entitled  “A  bill  to  create  a customs  court  and  provide 
a better  system  for  the  trial  of  customs-revenue  cases,”  copies  of  which 
will  be  found  in  the  accompanying  appendix. 

It  is  believed  that  nothing  would  so  much  commend  the  Administra- 
tion, of  which  you  form  a part,  to  the  business  interests  of  the  country 
as  the  exercise  of  its  influence  upon  Congress  for  securing  the  legisla- 
tion above  recommended,  and  I feel  authorized  to  assure  you  of  the  co- 
operation with  you  of  the  manufacturers  of  the  country  in  your  efforts 
in  this  behalf. 

Bespectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

John  L.  Hayes, 

Secretary  of  the  National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers. 


APPENDIX. 

The  letter  to  Hon.  Nelson  W.  Aldrich,  having  been  published  in  a former  number 
of  this  Bulletin,  is  not  here  reproduced. 

The  chief  present  difficulty  in  remedying  fraudulent  undervaluations,  through  a 
resort  to  the  courts  of  law,  results  from  section  16  of  the  law  of  June  22,  1874,  en- 
titled “An  act  to  amend  the  customs-revenue  laws  and  to  repeal  moieties,”  which  is 
as  follows : 

“ That  in  all  actions,  suits,  and  proceedings  in  any  court  of  the  United  States  now 
pending  or  hereafter  commenced  or  prosecuted  to  enforce  or  declare  the  forfeiture  of 
any  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise,  or  to  recover  the  value  thereof,  or  any  other  sum 
alleged  to  be  forfeited  by  reason  of  any  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  customs- 
revenue  laws,  or  any  of  such  provisions,  in  which  action,  suit,  or  proceeding  an  issue 
or  issues  of  fact  shall  have  been  joined,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  court,  on  trial 
thereof,  to  submit  to  the  jury,  as  a distinct  and  separate  proposition,  whether  the 
alleged  acts  were  done  with  an  actual  intention  to  defraud  the  United  States,  and  to 
require  upon  such  proposition  a special  finding  by  such  jury ; or  if  such  issues  be  tried 
by  the  court  without  a jury,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  court  to  pass  upon  and  decide 
such  proposition  as  a distinct  and  separate  finding  of  fact ; and  in  such  cases,  unless 
intent  to  defraud  shall  he  so  found,  no  fine,  penally,  or  forfeiture  shall  be  imposed .” 

By  this  act  the  burden  of  proof  of  the  intent  to  defraud  in  the  undervaluation  is 
imposed  upon  the  Government,  and  this  practically  prevents  any  successful  proceed- 
ings for  forfeiture. 

The  existing  provisions  as  to  undervaluation,  which  the  Tariff  Commission  recom- 
mended to  be  repealed,  are  as  follows  : 

“ Section  2900.  The  owner,  consignee,  or  agent  of  any  merchandise  which  has  been 
actually  purchased,  or  procured  otherwise  than  by  purchase,  at  the  time,  and  not 
afterward,  when  he  shall  produce  his  original  invoice  to  the  collector  and  make  and 
verify  his  written  entry  of  his  merchandise,  may  make  such  addition  in  the  entry  to 
the  cost  or  value  given  in  the  invoice  as  in  his  opinion  may  raise  the  same  to  the 
actual  market  value  or  wholesale  price  of  such  merchandise  at  the  period  of  exporta- 
tion to  the  United  States  in  the  principal  markets  of  the  country  from  which  the 
same  has  been  imported ; and  the  collector  within  whose  district  the  same  may  be  im- 
ported or  entered  may  cause  such  actual  market  value  or  wholesale  price  to  be  ap- 
praised; and  if  such  appraised  value  shall  exceed  by  ten  per  centum  or  more  the 
value  so  declared  in  the  entry,  then,  in  addition  to  the  duties  imposed  by  law  on  the 
same,  there  shall  be  collected  a duty  of  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem  on  such  ap- 
praised value.  The  duty  shall  not,  however,  be  assessed  upon  an  amount  less  than 
the  invoice  or  entered  value  (474.)” 

The  substitute  or  amendment  recommended  by  the  Commission,  embodying  pro- 
visions intended  to  remedy  the  systematic  practice  of  undervaluation  under  the  ex- 
isting laws,  was  as  follows : 

“The  owner,  consignee,  or  agent  of  any  merchandise  which  has  been  actually  pur- 
chased, or  procured  otherwise  than  by  purchase,  at  the  time,  and  not  afterward, 
when  he  shall  produce  his  original  invoice  to  the  collector,  and  make  and  verify  un- 
der oath  or  affirmation  his  written  entry  of  his  merchandise,  may  make  such  addi- 
tion in  the  entry  to  the  cost  or  value  given  in  the  invoice  as  in  his  opinion  may  raise 


340  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


the  same  to  the  actual  market  value  or  wholesale  price  of  such  merchandise  at  the 
period  of  exportation  to  the  United  States  in  the  principal  markets  of  the  country 
from  which  the  same  has  been  imported,  and  the  collector  within  whose  district 
the  same  may  be  imported  or  entered  shall  cause  such  actual  value  or  wholesale  price 
to  be  appraised ; but  the  duty  shall  not,  however,  be  assessed  upon  an  amount  of 
less  than  the  invoice  or  entered  value,  except  in  case  of  mistake  or  misdescription 
of  the  goods  in  the  invoice,  clearly  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  collector ; 
and  in  all  cases  where  such  market  value  or  wholesale  price  is  appraised,  estimated, 
and  ascertained  under  the  customs  laws  of  the  United  States,  of  any  article  or  articles 
of  imported  merchandise,  subject  to  ad  valorem  duty,  or  to  duty  based  in  whole  or  in 
part  on  value,  shall  exceed  the  entered  value  at  the  custom-house  (whether  such  en- 
tered value  be  based  on  a certified  invoice  or  any  other  document  whatever  admitted 
or  received  in  lieu  of  such  certified  invoice)  more  than  5 per  centum,  and  not  more 
than  15  per  centum,  of  the  value  stated  in  said  entry  thereof,  then  in  addition  to  .the 
duty  imposed  by  law  on  such  article  or  articles  of  merchandise,  there  shall  be  levied, 
collected,  and  paid  2 per* centum  of  such  total  appraised  market  value  or  wholesale 
price  thereof  for  each  full  or  entire  1 per  centum  of  such  additional  value  above  such 
5 per  centum  as  a penalty  for  such  undervaluation;  and  if  such  appraised  value  shall 
exceed  said  entered  value  more  than  15  per  centum,  the  said  entry  shall  be  deemed 
and  held  to  be  presumptively  fraudulent,  and  the  collector  shall  seize  such  article  or 
articles  of  merchandise,  and  proceed  as  in  other  cases  of  forfeiture  for  violation  of  the 
customs  laws:  Provided , That  the  penalties  and  forfeiture  in  this  section  proyided  for 
shall  only  apply  to  the  particular  articles  in  each  invoice  which  are  undervalued  : 
And  provided  further,  That  when  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  to  the  collector  by  satis- 
factory evidence  that  the  said  undervaluation  on  said  entry  was  caused  by  a manifest 
clerical  error  or  mere  mistake,  and  without  any  intention  to  undervalue  or  defraud, 
the  collector  shall  so  certify  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  with  such  certifi- 
cate transmit  the  evidence  in  support  thereof,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  if 
fully  satisfied  that  said  certificate  is  sustained  by  said  evidence,  and  not  otherwise, 
may  remit  said  penalty,  or  may  remit  said  forfeiture  at  any  time  before  the  commence- 
ment of  legal  proceedings  for  forfeiture,  aud  not  afterwards;  and  in  such  legal  pro- 
ceedings the  fact  of  such  undervaluation  shall  be  presumptive  evidence  of  fraud, 
and  the  burden  of  proof  shall  be  on  the  claimant  to  rebut  the  same,  and  forfeiture 
shall  be  adjudged  unless  he  shall  fully  rebut  said  presumption  of  fraudulent  intent 
by  sufficient  evidence.” 

The  observations  of  the  Tariff  Commission  upon  the  subject  of  establishing  a cus- 
toms court  were  as  follows : 

“a  customs  coukt. 

“ The  present  mode  of  trying  the  very  large  number  of  cases  arising  under  the  laws 
imposing  tonnage  and  customs  duties  has  been  the  subject  of  frequent  criticism  in 
statements  made  before  the  Commission  by  Treasury  and  customs  officials  and  im- 
porters. In  case  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  decision  of  the  collector,  the  law  provides 
for  a protest  and  appeal  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  hears  the  case  and 
affirms  or  reverses  the  holding  of  the  collector.  The  decision  of  the  Secretary  is  final, 
unless  suit  is  brought  against  the  collector  to  recover  back  the  duties  claimed  to  have 
been  illegally  or  erroneously  exacted  within  ninety  days.  The  crowded  condition  of 
the  dockets  of  the  courts  necessarily  occasions  great  delay  in  the  decision  of  these 
cases,  and,  when  decided,  the  case,  being  subject  to  writ  of  error  or  appeal,  when  taken 
to  the  Supreme  Court  again  finds  its  place  on  a docket  encumbered  by  accumulated 
business,  and  it  is  ordinarily  several  years  before  a final  decision  is  reached. 

‘‘Meantime  a great  number  of  importations  have  been  made  presenting  the  same 
question  already  in  process  of  litigation,  and  the  importer  is  compelled  to  pay  the 
rate  of  duties  already  fixed  by  the  Secretary,  and  if  he  desires  to  save  the  question, 
must  protest  and  appeal,  and  commence  his  suit  to  recover  back  the  duties  which  he 
claims  have  been  illegally  or  erroneously  exacted  from  him.  Thus  the  court  dockets 
are  further  encumbered,  and  the  importers  subjected  to  the  expense  and  annoyance 
of  this  added  litigation,  which  is  ordinarily  determined  by  the  decision  of  the  original 
case. 

“Meanwhile,  pending  the  litigation,  the  merchandise  imported  has  been  sold,  and 
the  duties,  paid  being  part  of  their  cost,  enter  to  a greater  or  less  extent  into  the  price  ; 
and  to  the  extent  that  these  duties  have  been  paid  by  the  purchaser  he  is  necessarily 
without  relief,  so  that  on  reversal  of  the  decision  of  the  Secretary  the  duties  refunded 
(less  attorneys’  fees  and  expenses)  become  an  additional  profit  to  the  importers  who 
have  protested,  appealed,  and  commenced  action  within  the  time  required  by  law. 
Pending  the  litigation  there  has  been  such  uncertainty  as  to  the  rate  of  duty  and 
consequent  cost  of  the  merchandise  as  to  necessarily  interfere  materially  with  legiti- 
mate commercial  transactions. 

“In  the  earlier  history  of  the  country,  when  importations  were  comparatively 
small,  the  business  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  comparatively  light,  and  the 
court  dockets  comparatively  unencumbered,  no  considerable  inconvenience  seems  to 
have  been  experienced  from  this  mode  of  proceeding ; but  all  now  seem  to  agree  that 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  34l 

a more  simple  and  speedy  method  of  proceeding  is  very  desirable,  if  not  absolutely 
necessary,  and  we  have  thought  it  part  of  our  duty  to  suggest  a change. 

“ It  has  been  suggested  that  some  measure  of  relief  might  be  obtained  by  the  trans- 
fer of  the  cases  brought  against  the  collectors  to  the  Court  of  Claims.  It  is  doubtful 
however,  whether  this  might  not  too  seriously  interfere  with  the  other  business  of 
that  court,  and  produce  such  an  accumulation  of  cases  on  its  docket  as  to  result  to 
some  extent  in  the  same  delay  which  is  now  so  seriously  complained  of.  It  is  thought 
that,  to  be  effective,  an  independent  court  should  be  created,  located  at  the  great 
commercial  center  of  the  country,  where  much  the  larger  proportion  of  business  for 
its  consideration  would  necessarily  arise,  and  could  be  considered  and  disposed  of 
with  much  less  delay  and  expense  than  if  the  court  was  located  elsewhere ; and  that 
a provision  for  sessions  once  a year  at  New  Orleans  and  San  Francisco,  and  at  other 
points,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court,  as  business  might  require,  would  add  greatly  to 
the  prompt  and  convenient  transaction  of  its  business.  In  the  draft  of  the  bill  ap- 
pended hereto  we  have  recommended  that  at  least  one  of  the  judges  of  this  court 
should  be  a customs  expert  of  at  least  ten  years’  experience  in  the  service,  and  this 
because  we  are  satisfied  that  among  the  experienced  custom-house  officers  can  be  found 
the  men  best  fitted  for  the  position.  The, heads  of  divisions  in  the  larger  custom- 
houses are  men  who  have  kept  their  places  through  changing  administrations  be- 
cause they  were  eminently  fitted  for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  required  of  th;  m. 
We  have  found  them  thoroughly  conversant  with  customs  questions,  and  with  great 
capacity  and  aptitude  for  the  service  in  which  they  are  employed.  Their  experience 
and  knowledge  of  customs  questions  and  decisions  would,  as  we  think,  peculiarly  fit 
them  for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  devolving  on  them  as  judges  of  the  proposed  court, 
and  we  are  satisfied  that  in  its  constitution  at  least  one  of  the  judges  should  be  of 
this  class,  and  that  the  omission  of  this  provision  would  seriously  interfere  with  the 
efficiency  of  the  proposed  court. 

“With  a view  to  simplifying  the  mode  of  proceeding  and  hastening  the  decision, 
we  have  recommended  that,  unless  the  court  shall  otherwise  direct,  no  pleadings 
shall  be  necessary,  except  the  papers  sent  up  by  the  collector  on  the  appeal,  believ- 
ing that  the  decision  of  the  collector  and  the  protest  of  the  importer  will  ordinarily 
be  all  that  is  necessary  to  make  up  the  issue ; and  have  provided  that,  except  for 
cause,  the  decision  shall  be  entered  within  ninety  days  of  the  appeal.  The  provision 
for  notice  and  opportunity  (in  the  discretion  of  the  court)  for  other  persons  inter- 
ested to  be  heard  is  because  the  decision  of  any  question  should,  as  far  as  possible, 
control  in  other  cases  in  which  the  same  question  may  be  presented,  and  should 
therefore  be  made  upon  as  full  a hearing  as  possible  of  all  persons  in  interest. 

* “ The  provision  for  a reconsideration  by  the  collector,  on  filing  of  protest,  is  intended 

to  avoid  the  necessity  of  appeals  from  hasty  decisions,  and  that  for  rehearing  before 
the  court  is  to  permit  a reconsideration  in  cases  where  there  is  room  for  doubt. 

“ There  is  a difference  of  opinion  in  the  Commission  as  to  the  propriety  of  provid- 
ing for  the  trial  of  questions  of  fact  by  jury  ; but  as  we  do  not  consider  that  any  con- 
stitutional question  is  involved,  or  that  the  party  is  of  right  entitled  to  a trial  by 
jury  in  the  class  of  cases  coming  before  this  court,  and  as  questions  of  fact  will  be 
infrequent,  and,  when  occurring,  more  likely  to  be  correctly  decided  by  the  court  than 
by  a jury,  on  account  of  their  technical  character,  the  proposed  bill  does  not  provide 
for  a j ury . 

“ The  proposed  bill  makes  no  provision  for  a review  of  the  decisions  of  the  court  by 
proceedings  in  error  or  on  appeal,  and  we  suggest  that,  in  view  of  the  necessity  for 
the  early  final  decision  of  these  cases,  proceedings  in  error  or  by  appeal  should  be 
confined  within  the  narrowest  limits  consistent  with  a proper  regard  for  the  rights  of 
the  parties. 

“The  purpose  in  the  preparation  of  this  bill  has  been  to  provide  a limit,  with  the 
fewest  possible  formalities,  and  adapted  to  a prompt  decision  of  the  questions  which 
may  arise,  with  a view  to  relieving  importers  and  the  Government  from  the  uncer- 
tainties and  annoyances  to  which  they  are  now  subjected. 

“In  the  preparation  of  this  bill,  and  of  the  drafts  of  the  administrative  sections  of 
the  tariff  law,  to  which  w.e  have  recommended  amendments,  the  Commission  has  had 
the  advantage  of  the  experience  and  knowledge  of  Commissioner  McMahon,  as  these 
drafts  were  completed  before  his  decease,  aud  we  may  add  that  all  of  them  met  with 
his  hearty  approval.  His  long  experience  as  a customs  officer  and  thorough  knowl- 
edge of  customs  affairs  induced  the  Commission  to  give  great  weight  to  his  opinions 
and  to  rely  on  his  recommendations  as  to  these  matters,  and  we  believe  that  investi- 
gation will  demonstrate  the  wisdom  of  the  proposed  changes.” 

The  bill  for  the  establishment  of  a customs  court  proposed  by  the  Tariff  Commission 
is  as  follows  : 

. “A  BILL  to  create  a customs  court  and  provide  a better  system  for  the  trial  of  customs-revenue  cases. 

“Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled,  That  a court  shall  be,  and  is  hereby,  constituted,  to  be  known  as  the  Cus- 


842  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


toms  Court  of  tlie  United  States,  to  consist  of  a president-judge  and  two  associate 
judges  (at  least  one  of  whom  shall  be  a customs  expert,  and  shall  have  had  at  least 
ten  years’  experience  iu  the  custonls  service),  who  shall  be  appointed  and  qualified 
and  hold  their  offices  in  all  respects  as  the  other  judges  of  the  courts  of  the  United 

States.  The  salary  of  the  president-judge  shall  be dollars,  and  of  each  of  the 

associates  dollars,  per  year,  to  be  paid  in  the  same  manner  as  the  salaries  of 

other  judges. 

“Sec.  2.  The  jurisdiction  of  said  court  shall  extend  to  all  questions  arising  under 
the  laws  of  the  United  States  imposing  customs  and  tonnage  duties  which  have  here- 
tofore been  the  subject  of  protest  and  appeal  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and 
shall  include  all  questions  of  classification  and  rates  of  duty  on  imported  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise,  and  the  mode  of  determining  said  rates  ; and  the  decision  of 
said  court  as  to  all  such  matters  shall  be  final  and  conclusive:  Provided,  That  on  mo- 
tion filed  by  either  party  within  thirty  days  of  the  entry  of  any  decision  said  court 
may  for  cause  set  aside  the  judgment  and  grant  a rehearing,  and  the  case  shall  then 
proceed  to  a hearing  and  determination  in  all  respects  as  if  said  judgment  had  not 
been  entered. 

“Sec.  3.  In  addition  to  the  prohibitions  of  section  seven  hundred  and  thirteen  of  the 
Revised  Statutes,  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  of  said  judges  to  be  interested  in  any 
way  in  any  importing  or  mercantile  business,  or  engaged  or  interested  in  importa- 
tions of  merchandise  or  property  of  any  description,  or  to  be  partners  of,  or  interested 
in  business  with,  any  importer  of  such  goods  or  property. 

“ Sec.  4.  Said  court  shall,  so  far  as  the  same  may  be  necessary  to  the  exercise  of  its 
jurisdiction,  have  the  same  power  as  the  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States  to  issue 
writs,  processes,  and  subpoenas,  and  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses,  issue  com- 
missions to  take  testimony,  impose  and  administer  judicial  oaths,  compel  the  pro- 
duction of  books  or  writings  in  the  possession  of  parties  or  others  which  contain  evi- 
dence as  to  any  matter  pending  before  it,  to  issue  attachments  and  executions  to  en- 
force its  judgments  and  decrees,  to  punish  by  fine  and  imprisonment  for  contempts 
of  its  authority,  and  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  transaction  of  its  business ; 
and  such  powers  shall  in  all  respects  be  subject  to  the  same  limitations  and  restrictions 
as  in  the  circuit  courts. 

“ Sec.  5.  All  writs,  processes,  and  subpoenas  issuing  from  said  court  shall  be  under 
the  seal  thereof  and  signed  by  its  clerk,  and  bear  teste  in  the  name  of  the  president- 
judge  of  said  court. 

“ Sec.  6.  The  regular  sessions  of  said  court  shall  be  held  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
in  rooms  to  be  furnished  for  the  purpose  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  or  rea-  # 
sonably  near  to  the  custom-house  in  said  city,  and  said  court  shall  be  open  daily,  ex- 
cept Sundays  and  legal  holidays,  for  the  transaction  of  business ; but  the  court  shall 
hold  at  least  one  session  in  each  year  at  the  city  of  New  Orleans  and  one  session  at 
the  city  of  San  Francisco,  and  from  time  to  time,  as  the  court  may  deem  it  necessary, 
special  sessions  may  be  held  at  the  custom-house  of  any  other  port  of  entry,  as  the 
business  may  require,  and  the  necessary  traveling  expenses  of  the  judges  and  clerk 
shall  be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 

“ Sec.  7.  Said  court  shall  appoint  a clerk,  who  shall  receive  an  annual  salary  of 

dollars,  and  no  other  fees  or  compensation,  and  who  shall  discharge  for  said  court 
the  same  duties  as  are  required  by  law  of  the  clerks  of  circuit  courts,  and  such  other 
duties  as  may  be  necessary  or  as  the  court  may  direct ; he  shall  be  qualified  and  give 
bond,  as  is  required  bylaw  of  the  clerks  of  the  circuit  courts  ; shall  hold  his  office 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  court,  and  have  charge  of  its  seal  and  records;  and  in  the 
discharge  of  his  duties  shall  in  all  respects  be  subject  to  the  same  laws  as  the  clerks 
of  said  circuit  courts.  The  process  of  said  court  shall  be  served  by  the  marshal  of 
any  district  to  which  it  may  be  issued,  and  may  be  returned  by  mail ; and  said  court 
shall  appoint  one  or  more  bailiffs,  as  may  be  necessary,  who  shall  be  paid  as  the  bail- 
iffs in  circuit  courts. 

“Sec.  8.  Section  two  thousand  nine  hundred  and  thirty-oue of  the  Revised  Statutes 
shall  be,  and  is  hereby,  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows : 

“Sec.  2931.  On  the  entry  of  any  vessel,  or  of  any  merchandise,  the  decision  of  the 
collector  of  customs  at  the  port  of  importation  and  entry  as  to  the  rate  and  amount 
of  duties  to  be  paid  on  the  tonnage  of  such  vessel,  or  on  such  merchandise,  shall  be 
final  and  conclusive  against  all  persons  interested  therein,  unless  the  owner,  master, 
commander,  or  consignee  of  such  vessel  iuthe  case  of  duties  levied  on  tonnage,  or  the 
owner,  importer,  consignee,  or  agent  of  the  merchandise  in  the  case  of  duties  levied 
on  merchandise,  shall,  within  ten  days  alter  public  notice  is  posted  in  the  custom- 
house of  the  ascertainment  and  liquidation  of  the  duties  on  any  entry  by  the  proper 
officers  of  the  customs,  as  well  iu  cases  of  merchandise  entered  in  bond  as  for  con- 
sumption, give  notice  of  protest,  iu  writing,  to  the  collector  on  each  entry,  if  dissatis- 
fied with  his  decision,  setting  forth  therein,  distinctly  and  specifically,  the  grounds  of 
his  objection  thereto  (but  protests  lodged  before  liquidation  shall  be  void),  on  the 
receipt  of  which  the  collector  shall  reconsider  the  matter  complained  of,  and  again 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


343 


decide  the  same  ; and  on  deciding  the  same,  the  collector  shall  notify  the  importer,  his 
agent,  or  attorney,  in  writing,  by  mail,  of  his  determination  thereof,  and  such  deter- 
mination shall  be  final  and  conclusive  of  sucb  ascertainment  and  liquidation,  unless 
the  importer  shall  witbin  twenty  days  of  the  mailing  of  such  notice  of  decision  ap- 
peal therefrom  to  the  customs  court,  by  giving  the  collector  notice  of  such  appeal, 
and  filing  with  the  collector  a bond,  with  sufficient  sureties,  payable  to  the  United 
States,  in  double  the  amount  of  all  the  duties  unpaid,  if  any,  and  of  the  costs 
and  charges  on  such  vessel  or  merchandise  as  liquidated,  conditioned  that  he  will 
abidS  by  and  satisfy  the  judgment  or  decree  of  said  customs  court,  on  said  ap 
peal,  and  pay  all  moneys  and  costs  which  may  be  adjudged  against  him  in  said  cus- 
toms court.  Said  bond  shall  be  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  collector,  and  he  may 
require  the  sureties  thereon  to  justify  in  double  the  amount  thereof:  Provided , how- 
ever, That  such  importer,  owner,  consignee,  or  agent  may  in  such  cases,  if  said  mer- 
chandise is  still  in  the  possession  of  the  collector,  and  there  has  been  no  undervalua- 
tion or  fraud  in  the  entry  thereof,  withdraw  said  merchandise  from  entry  and  export 
the  same,  at  any  time  before  the  time  herein  fixed  for  the  giving  of  said  bond,  and 
before  said  bond  is  filed,  if  he  desires  to  do  so  ; and  in  that  case  no  duties  shall  be 
charged  thereon,  and  said  merchandise  shall  not  thereafter  be  subject  to  entry ; but 
in  case  of  such  withdrawal  for  export,  such  importer,  owner,  consignee,  or  agent 
shall  pay  all  the  actual  cost  and  expenses  on  said  entry. 

“ Sec.  9.  Upon  the  filing  and  approval  of  said  appeal  bond,  as  provided  in  section 
twenty-nine  hundred  and  thirty- one  as  amended  above,  the  collector  shall  deliver  said 
merchandise,  if  any  shall  remain  in  his  possession,  to  the  importer,  owner,  consignee, 
or  agent  entitled  to  the  same,  and  shall  immediately  forward  the  entry  of  said  goods 
and  said  protest,  together  with  all  testimony  in  his  possession  in  relation  to  said  en- 
try, and  all  other  papers,  writings,  and  samples  in  any  way  connected  with  said  en- 
try aud  liquidation,  including  the  decision  of  the  collector  and  a statement  of  the 
liquidation  of  the  duties  on  said  entry,  to  the  clerk  of  the  customs  court,  who  shall 
thereupon  docket  the  case  in  the  name  of  the  United  States  against  said  appellant, 
and  shall  carefully  file  and  preserve  the  papers  and  samples  so  transmitted  to  him  ; 
and  thereupon  said  case  shall  be  ready  for  hearing  without  the  filing  of  any  other 
pleadings,  unless  the  court  shall  otherwise  direct ; but  either  party  may  offer  addi- 
tional testimony  by  deposition,  upon  notice,  or  orally,  under  such  regulations  as  the 
court  m#y  make  in  relation  thereto. 

“ Sec.  10.  On  the  filing  of  an  appeal  in  case  of  an  entry  of  merchandise,  the  court 
shall  cause  a notice  of  the  same  to  be  given  in  some  newspaper  published  at  the  port 
of  importation,  and  also  in  a newspaper  to  be  designated  for  that  purpose  by  the 
court,  published  and  of  general  circulation  in  the  city  of  New  York,  describing  the 
merchandise  entered,  by  its  usual  commercial  designation,  and  such  general  descrip- 
tion as  may,  in  the  opinion  of  the  court,  be  necessary  to  indicate  the  character  of  the 
merchandise,  together  with  the  classification  thereof,  and  rate  of  duty  thereon,  as 
claimed  by  the  appellant,  and  also  as  decided  by  the  collector.  And  persons  claiming 
to  bave  an  interest  in  the  questions  involved  in  the  case  may,  on  application,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  court,  be  allowed  to  offer  testimony,  and  be  heard  in  argument 
therein,  by  themselves  or  counsel ; but  such  persons  shall  pay  their  own  costs  and 
shall  not  recover  the  same  in  any  case. 

“ Sec.  11.  Each  case  so  transmitted  to  said  court  shallbe  heard  and  decided  as  soon 
as  possible,  having  due  regard  to  a proper  consideration  of  the  same ; but  the  decision 
shall  not  be  deferred  more  than  ninety  days  from  the  date  of  the  receipt  and  docket- 
ing of  said  appeal,  unless  for  cause  to  be  entered  on  the  docket  of  said  court:  Pro- 
vided, That  the  court  shall  not  lose  jurisdiction  of  said  case,  nor  shall  its  jurisdiction 
be  affected  in  any  way  by  any  delay  in  said  decision  beyond  the  said  ninety  days 
after  the  receipt  and  docketing  of  said  appeal. 

“ Sec.  12.  In  deciding  each  case  the  said  court  shall  determine  all  matters  involved 
in  the  appeal,  or  in  any  way  connected  with  the  entry,  and  shall  determine  the 
rates  and  amounts  of  the  duties  and  charges  to  be  paid  by  reason  of  the  same,  and 
render  judgment  therefor  in  favor  of  the  United  States  and  against  said  appellant, 
including  in  said  judgment  interest  on  said  duties  and  charges  from  the  date  of 
entry,  if  entered  for  consumption,  or  from  the  date  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  entry 
for  consumption,  if  originally  entered  in  bond,  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  an- 
num. If  the  decision  of  the  collector  is  affirmed,  the  judgment  shall  be  for  the  amount 
of  the  duties  remaining  unpaid  as  liquidated  by  the  customs  officers,  with  interest  as 
.aforesaid,  and  for  the  costs  of  said  appeal ; and  if  the  decision  of  the  collector  is  re- 
versed, in  whole  or  in  part,  then  the  court  shall  determine  the  rates  of  duties  to  be 
charged,  and  may  liquidate  the  entry  accordingly,  or  refer  the  same  to  tlio  proper 
customs  officers,  or  to  the  clerk  of  said  court,  for  liquidation ; aud  in  such  case  when 
the  said  entry  has  been  liquidated  by  or  under  the  order  of  the  court,  it  shall  render 
judgment  in  favor  of  the  United  States  and  against  the  appellant  for  the  amount  due 
on  said  entry,  with  interest  as  aforesaid;  but  if  the  decision  of  the  collector  is  wholly 
reversed,  such  judgment  shall  be  without  costs,  in  which  case  the  United  States  shall 


344  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


pay  the  costs  on  said  appeal;  and  if  the  decision  of  the  collector  is  reversed  in  part 
and  affirmed  in  part,  the  court  shall  make  such  order  as  to  costs  as  it  may  deem  equit- 
able; the  judgment  rendered  shall  in  auy  case  bear  interest  from  the  date  thereof  at 
the  rate  of  six  per  cent,  per  annum,  and  shall  be  payable  in  coin,  and  execution  may 
issue  from  said  court  to  the  marshal  of  any  district  in  the  United  States  to  collect  the 
same  at  any  time  after  the  entry  of  said  judgment,  and  suit  may  be  brought  and  judg- 
ment rendered  upon  said  appeal  bond  in  the  proper  circuit  court  (if  said  judgment  is 
not  paid)  for  the  amount  of  said  judgment,  costs,  and  interest. 

“ Sec.  13.  That  said  court  shall  cause  synopses  of  its  decisions  from  time  to  time  to  be 
prepared,  describing  therein  the  merchandise  involved  by  its  commercial  designation, 
and  such  other  pertinent  description  as  may  be  necessary  to  a full  understanding  of 
its  holdings,  and  the  classification  of  the  same  and  rates  of  duties  thereon  as  deter- 
mined by  said  court,  and  all  other  matters  by  it  decided;  it  shall  certify  said  synop- 
ses to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  shall  cause  the  same  to  be  printed  and 
furnished  to  the  s'everal  custom-houses  for  the  use  of  the  revenue  officers  in  the  dis- 
charge of  their  duties ; and  such  decisions  shall  be  binding  on  the  several  collectors 
and  other  revenue  officers  as  to  all  matters  of  classification  of  merchandise  and  the 
duties  chargeable  thereon,  and  all  other  matters  so  decided  in  said  court;  and  the 
holdings  of  said  court  shall  be  followed  in  the  administration  of  the  customs  revenues 
by  all  the  officers  of  the  Government  having  charge  thereof. 

“ Sec.  14.  The  President  shall,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 
appoint  a customs  attorney,  who  shall  be  qualified  and  give  bond  and  hold  his  office 
the  same  as  district  attorneys,  and  receive  a salary  of dollars  per  year  while  hold- 

ing said  office.  It  shall  be  iris  duty  to  act  as  the  attorney  of  the  United  States  in  all 
cases  pending  in  the  customs  court ; and  while  holding  said  office  he  shall  not  be  en- 
gaged in  the  business  of  importation,  nor  in  any  way  interested  in  such  business. 
The  Attorney- General  may  also,  when  in  his  judgment  it  may  be  necessary,  appoint 
other  counsel  to  assist  said  customs  attorney  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  in  any  case 
or  cases. 

“ Sec.  15.  That  from  and  after  the  taking  effect  of  this  act  no  collector  or  other  offi- 
cer of  the  customs  shall  be  in  any  way  liable  to  any  master,  owner,  commander,  or 
consignee  of  any  vessel,  or  owner,  importer,  consignee,  or  agent  of  any  merchandise, 
or  any  other  person,  for  or  on  account  of  any  rulings  or  holdings  as  to  the  tonnage, 
dues,  and  charges  on  said  vessel,  or  the  classification  of  said  merchandise,  or  the 
duties  charged  thereon,  or  the  collection  of  any  dues,  charges,  or  duties  on  or  on  ac- 
count of  said  vessel  or  merchandise,  or  any  other  matter  or  thing  as  to  which  said 
master,  owner,  commander,  or  consignee  of  such  vessel,  or  owner,  importer,  con- 
signee, or  agent  of  such  merchandise,  might  under  this  act  be  entitled  to  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  said  collector  to  the  customs  court. 

‘‘Sec.  16.  That  sections  twenty-nine  hundred  and  thirty-one,  three  thousand  and 
eleven,  three  thousand  and  twelve,  three  thousand  and  thirteen  of  the  Revised  Stat- 
utes, the  first,  second,  and  third  sections  of  the  act  of  March  third,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  seventy-five,  entitled  “An  act  restricting  the  refunding  of  customs 
duties  and  prescribing  certain  regulations  of  the  Treasury  Department,”  and  all  other 
acts  and  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  are  hereby  repealed  ; 
but  such  repeal  shall  not  affect  pending  actions  or  causes  of  action  which  have  al- 
ready accrued,  nor  shall  anything  in  this  act  contained  be  construed  to  prevent  the 
correction  by  the  collector,  or  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  of  any  manifest  mis- 
takes or  clerical  errors  in  any  entry  or  liquidation,  whether  for  or  against  the  Gov- 
ernment, at  any  time  within  one  year  of  the  date  of  such  entry  ; but  the  power  to 
correct  such  mistakes  or  errors  shall  still  continue  to  exist  as  heretofore  within  said 
time.” 


[Ogden  & Co.,  lumber .] 

New  York,  August  5,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. 

Sir:  Replying  to  your  circular  of  31st  ult.,  we  would  say  that  we 
are  not  importers;  that,  from  our  observation,  we  entertain  the  opin- 
ion, if  any  duty  must  be  imposed  on  lumber,  it  should  be  specific, 
per  thousand  feet,  the  more  easily  and  honestly  collected;  that  we  are 
of  the  opinion  the  imposition  of  a duty  on  lumber  is  a grave  error,  in- 
ducing and  hastening  the  consumption  and  destruction  of  our  forests; 
that  in  the  manner  now  being  cut  off,  the  day  will  come  when  the  Brit- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


345 


ish  provinces  will  liave  about  all  the  standing  timber;  that  we  consider 
as  a measure  of  economy  lumber  and  timber  should  be  on  the  free  list, 
to  the  end  that  in  the  latter  days  the  United  States  will  have  the  stand- 
ing timber,  having  drawn  that  of  the  provinces,  exhausted  their  hills, 
while  ours  are  yet  covered. 

Keplying  to  the  latter  clause  of  your  circular,  we  say  that  we  think 
the  lumber  duties  are  honestly  collected,  and  cannot  see  that  we  have, 
or  any  dealers  have,  suffered  through  irregularities  or  evasions  of  the 
lumber  tariff. 

We  are,  very  respectfully, 

OGDEN  & CO. 


[Jackson  & Kilpatrick,  salt.  ] 

New  Orleans,  October  22,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  17th  instant  is  received.  In  reply,  we 
have  no  objections  to  communicating  the  matter  to  Congress  or  making 
it  public.  On  the  contrary,  we  believe  if  the  prohibitory  duty  now  placed 
on  salt  was  known  to  the  55,000,000  population  of  this  country,  public 
opinion  would  demand  that  an  article  of  prime  necessity,  such  as  salt, 
should  be  placed  on  the  free  list.  If  salt  was  on  the  free  list,  it  would 
give  freight  from  Liverpool  to  inward  vessels,  thereby  reducing  outward 
freight.  Being  none,  or  very  little  salt  or  heavy  freight,  steamers  and 
ships  mostly  come  in  ballast,  whereas  if  there  was  no  duty  on  salt  it 
wrould  give  outward  freight  to  our  railroads,  barges,  and  steamboats, 
thereby  reducing  freight  to  our  seaports;  consequently  add  to  the 
profits  of  the  agriculturist,  and  largely  benefit  our  shipping  ports.  Pre- 
vious to  1861  this  port  received  about  900,000  sacks  per  annum.  Duty 
was  then  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  or  about  6 cents  per  sack,  netting  in 
duties  about  $54,000.  With  this  prohibitory  tariff  of  12  cents  per  100 
pounds  in  sacks  or  8 cents  per  100  in  bulk,  the  imports  of  salt  at  New 
Orleans  was  only  about  160,000  sacks;  at  about  25  cents  per  sack,  duty 
was  only  $40,000,  or  $14,000  less  than  under  a low  tariff.  On  the  point 
of  revenue,  the  United  States  would  receive  more  net  cash  on  a low  tar- 
iff for  salt  than  a high  one.  We  merely  call  your  attention  to  this  matter, 
and  inclose  a circular  of  1883,  which  applies  to  the  present  year,  1885. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

JACKSON  & KILPATBICK. 


New  Orleans,  February  1,  1883. 

To  the  Senators  and  Members  of  the  Rouse  of  Bepresentatives  of  the  United  States  in  Con- 
gress assembled  : 

Gentlemen  : The  undersigned  respectfully  j>resent  for  your  consideration  tlie  fol- 
lowing facts  in  regard  to  the  duties  on  salt : 

Being  unable  at  this  early  date  to  ascertain  the  exact  information  as  to  receipts  and 
other  necessary  data  for  the  year  just  ending  (1882),  we  are  forced  to  take  that  of  the 
previous  year,  which,  being  fully  compiled,  is  therefore  on  record  and  is  available. 

The  total  consumption  of  salt  in  the  United  States  during  1881,  was  3,300,000,000 
pounds,  less  than  one-third  of  which,  say  1,074,827,800  pounds,  was  foreign  salt,  of 
which  941,803,333  pounds  paid  duty  to  the  Government,  amounting  to  $918,437.7H. 

The  balance  of  the  foreign  salt  imported  that  year,  amounting  to  133,024,477  pounds, 
paid  no  revenue  to  the  Government,  it  having  been  withdrawn  from  bond,  in  accord- 
ance with  act  passed  July  28,  1866,  which  act  provides  that  all  salt  used  in  the  cur- 
ing of  fish  shallhe  exempt  from  duty.  This  discrimination  is  only  made  at  a few 


346 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


ports  in  the  Eastern  (or  New  England)  States,  where  vessels  are  regularly  licensed 
in  the  fishing  trade. 

The  salt,  however,  is  consumed  in  the  States,  as  the  fish  are  generally  or  always 
cured  ashore;  but  it  maybe  stated  that  much  of  the  fish  thus  cured  is  sent  to  a 
foreign  market,  where  it  competes  with  similar  productions  of  those  countries.  The 
same  argument  can  be  advanced  in  favor  of  (those  who  pay  the  duty  on  salt)  the 
people  of  the  balance  of  our  country,  for  in  the  West  and  South  large  quantities  of 
pork,  beef,  and  other  products  are  annually  cured  with  salt  and  sent  to  foreign  coun- 
tries for  a market,  and  are  sold  in  competition  with  similar  articles  of  those  countries. 
Why,  therefore,  should  the  products  of  one  section  of  the  country  be  thus  discrimi- 
nated against  and  that  of  another  section  encouraged  and  protected?  Is  this  equity? 
Is  it  justice  ? The  remedy  is  either  to  rescind  act  of  July  28,  1866,  or,  better  still,  to 
put  salt  on  the  free  list,  where  it  justly  and  truly  belongs,  for  it  is  an  article  not  of 
luxury,  but  one  of  prime  necessity,  being  used  for  family  and  domestic  purposes  by 
each  and  every  one  of  our  50,000,000  inhabitants. 

It  is  the  preserver  and  purifier  of  all  things,  without  a rival  or  substitute.  Stand- 
ing alone  amidst  the  productions  of  nature,  pure  in  itself,  it  is  an  antidote  to  all  ma- 
terial corruption. 

Like  the  other  necessaries  of  life,  air  and  water,  salt  is  universally  diffused  and  in- 
exhaustibly supplied.  The  waters  of  our  ocean  hold  it  in  solution.  In  numerous 
places  streams  of  saline  waters  emerge  from  the  bowels  of  our  earth  from  everlasting 
springs,  or  are  easily  reached  by  wells.  It  is  found  in  solid  masses  in  the  depfhs  of 
our  earth.  Such  is  the  bountiful  supply  of  this  prime  necessary  of  life,  that  its  pro- 
duction is  cheap  and  easy.  Why,  then,  levy  this  odious,  heartless,  and  tyrannical  tax 
upon  man  and  beast  ? Falling,  as  it  does,  with  its  greatest  weight  upon  the  most 
helpless,  it  is  a tax  no  economy  could  avoid,  no  poverty  shun,  no  privation  escape. 
The  cost  of  manufacturing  salt  in  the  United  States  is  but  little  if  any  more  than  in 
England.  For  instance,  in  the  State  of  Michigan,  producing  more  than  50  per  cent, 
of  that  consumed  of  the  domestic  article  in  the  United  States,  the  salt  wells  and  works 
are  located  on  the  shores  of  navigable  waters,  thus  having  the  advantage  of  cheap 
transportation  and  easy  access  to  the  best  salt  market  in  this  country.  These  wells 
are  all  worked  in  connection  with  saw-mills,  the  greatest  economy  being  practiced. 
Power  is  furnished  by  the  same  engine  which  runs  the  mill ; for  fuel,  refuse  slabs  and 
sawdust  is  used,  and  the  barrels  are  made  from  rejected  lumber  and  slabs.  Thus  it  can 
be  readily  seen  that  the  cost  of  production  and  transportation  to  market  must  be 
extremely  small.  On  the  other  hand,  the  bulk  of  foreign  salt  used  in  this  country 
comes  from  England,  and  is  known  as  Liverpool  salt.  It  is  made  in  the  interior  of 
Euglaud,  and  brought  to  the  seaboard  in  lighters  at  a heavy  expense.  It  must  then 
cross  the  ocean  and  take  all  the  chances  of  loss  of  time  and  shrinkage.  To  the  origi- 
nal cost  is  added  what  should  be  called  the  export  tax,  hut  which  is  known  as  port 
dues,  bank  and  other  commissions ; then  come  marine  insurance  and  a heavy  ocean 
freight.  It  would  seem  that  the  great  difference  in  cost,  as  shown  above,  particu- 
larly in  the  items  of  ocean  freight  and  marine  insurance,  would  prove  a sufficient  dis- 
crimination against  foreign  salt.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  case;  for  we  find  that 
Congress  has  seen  fit  to  keep  what  might  well  he  called-  a heavy  war  tax  on  salt. 
The  duty  is  now  12  cents  per  hundred  pounds  on  salt  imported  in  sacks  and  8 cents 
per  hundred  pounds  for  that  brought  in  bulk.  This  specific  tax  is  equal  to  an  ad 
valorem  duty  of  60  per  cent,  and  which  is  almost  prohibitory,  as  the  very  small  rev- 
enue of  $918,437.78  clearly  indicates.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  nearly  all,  or  quite  all, 
of  said  revenue  is  lost  to  the  Government  in  payment  of  salaries  of  bonded  ware- 
house superintendents  and  their  assistants,  clerks,  weighers,  and  laborers,  who, 
with  the  abolition  of  this  tax  might  largely  or  entirely  be  dispensed  with. 

This  is  not  all,  for  besides  the  fact  that  the  Government  will  lose  but  little  if  any 
of  its  present  revenue  by  placing  salt,  where  in  accordance  with  justice  and  equity 
it  truly  belongs,  on  the  free  list,  there  would  also  be  a saving  to  the  great  mass  of  the 
people ; for  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  manufacturer  of  the  domestic  article 
does,  as  a rule,  add  to  the  price  his  product  would  sell  for  were  it  not  protected  by 
heavy  tariff  (which,  owing  to  the  advantages  already  enumerated,  should  still  leave 
a handsome  profit),  an  amount  about  equal  to  that  assessed  by  the  Government  on  the 
foreign  article.  Thus  we  find  that  the  people  have  to  pay  not  only  $918,437.78  taxed 
on  all  foreign  salt  for  the  benefit  of  the  Government,  but  that  there  are  over  $2,000,000 
additional  (making  nearly  $3,000,000  in  all)  extorted  from  the  consumer,  which  goes 
direct  into  the  pockets  of  the  few  who  manufacture  the  domestic  article.  These  few 
monopolists,  according  to  reliable  data,  do  not  employ  over  4,200  men  in  their  estab- 
lishments. Therefore,  we  again  ask,  where  is  the  justice  in  taxing  nearly  50,000,000 
of  people  in  the  interests  of  a few  wealthy  monopolists,  who  employ  such  a small  num- 
ber of  laborers,  and  to  whom  they  pay  an  average  of  not  over  $310  each  per  annum  ? 
The  duties  on  salt  cannot  therefore  be  classed  as  a protection  to  American  labor,  but 
should  be  denominated  as  a tax  in  the  interests  of  and  for  the  direct  benefit  of  a few 
wealthy  monopolists. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


347 


To  show  the  use  these  few  favored  capitalists  who  own  or  control  the  salt  works 
in  the  United  States  make  of  the  protection  granted  them  by  the  representatives  of  a 
patient  people  and  how  little  they  need  protection,  it  is  asserted  by  a standard  . 
thority  that  the  Onondago  Salt  Company  of  Syracuse,  N-  Y.,  have  issued  their  price- 
list, offering  to  lay  down  salt,  freight  prepaid  by  the  company,  at  various  points  along 
the  Grand  Trunk  Railroad  in  Canada  at  a price  much  less  per  barrel  than  any  citi- 
zen could  buy  the  same  article  for  in  Syracuse.  By  placing  salt  on  the  free  list  ocean 
freights  on  American  products  would  be  greatly  reduced,  for  as  it  is  now,  such  ship- 
ments have  to  stand  the  heavy  expense  of  the  round  trip.  Steamers  and  ships  coming 
this  way  would  no  longer  be  forced  to  come,  as  many  of  them  do  now,  in  purchased 
ballast,  which  is  a total  loss,  as  it  is  thrown  away  on  arrival  on  this  side  ; but  instead 
could  bring  a load  of  salt,  which,  as  the  latter  always  pays  freight,  would  materially 
assist  in  a reduction  as  above  stated.  Thus  we  would  be  enabled  to  greatly  enlarge 
our  foreign  commerce  by  securing  a wider  market  abroad  for  all  the  staple  articles,  a 
large  surplus  of  which  in  ordinary  times  we  produce.  To  sell  abroad  we  must  also 
buy.  The  annual  revenue  on  salt  to  the  Government  is,  as  is  well  known,  quite  small 
and  will  certainly  be  growing  less  each  year,  and  as  it  is  not  a luxury  but  an  absolute 
necessity,  being  more  generally  used  than  any  other  article  now  on  the  tariff,  we  re- 
spectfully suggest  that  the  placing  of  it  on  the  free  list  would  be  more  beneficial  to 
all  the  people  of  this  great  country  than  any  other  change  that  can  be  made  in  the 
present  tariff'. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JACKSON  & KILPATRICK, 

Importers,  Exporters,  and  Dealers,  and  Agents. 

Saint  Louis  Canning  Company,  Packers  of  Beef  and  Pork. 


[The  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association,  tariff  revision .] 

Philadelphia,  November  10,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir:  This  association  has  already  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  your 
circular  letter,  dated  July  17,  1885,  in  relation  to  the  collection  of  infor- 
mation concerning  customs  duties  on  foreign  products;  also  your  per- 
sonal communication  of  the  21st  of  the  same  month,  requesting  the  co- 
operation of  the  association  in  collecting  so  much  of  this  information  as 
is  desired  from  the  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  of  the  country.  In  our 
replies  to  the  communications  referred  to  we  have  expressed  our  entire 
willingness  to  aid  in  the  collection  of  information  from  these  manufact- 
urers. At  the  same  time  we  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  value  of  our 
work  would  he  impaired  if  the  Department  should  also  address  its  in- 
quiries directly  to  individual  manufacturers.  We  now  regret  to  say  that 
the  information  we  have  obtained  is#not  so  full  or  so  comprehensive  as 
we  have  desired  that  it  should  be. 

The  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association  embraced  on  the  1st  of  Jan- 
uary of  the  present  year  171  companies,  77  firms,  and  22  individuals,  or 
a total  of  270  members.  This  membership  was  directly  identified  with 
the  manufacture  of  iron  and  steel  in  every  form  in  every  State  of  the. 
Union  that  contains  an  iron  or  steel  industry.  Besides  this  absolute 
membership  the  association  regularly  corresponds  with  all  other  iron 
and  steel  manufacturers  in  the  United  States. 

Suitable  interrogatories  were  promptly  prepared,  and  application  for 
the  desired  information  was  made  early  in  August  last  to  all  iron  and 
steel  manufacturers.  (In  the  phrase  “iron  and  steel  manufacturers” 
we  include  the  owners  or  operators  of  blast  furuances,  rolling-mills,  and 
steel  works,  and  the  producers  of  hammered  iron  blooms.)  Early  in  Sep- 
tember we  again  addressed  all  manufacturers  who  had  not  responded 
to  our  first  communication.  Copies  of  the  interrogatories  referred  to  and 


348  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

of  the  circular  letters  accompanying  them  were  promptly  transmitted 
to  the  Treasury  Department.  Of  the  more  than  five  hundred  and  fifty 
companies,  firms,  and  individuals  addressed  by  the  association  less  than 
one-fourth  have  responded  in  writing;  of  this  number  several  have  re- 
fused to  give  any  information  whatever  and  many  others  have  given 
very  imperfect  information.  Some  have  doubtless  addressed  the  De- 
partment directly,  and  we  understand  that  replies  will  also  be  made  by 
a few  organizations  representing  special  iron  or  steel  interests.  Of  the 
large  number  who  have  not  formally  responded  to  the  interrogatories 
of  the  association  many  have  personally  given  reasons  for  not  respond- 
ing which  were  similar  to  those  assigned  by  others  in  writing.  This 
unwillingness  or  refusal  to  respond  to  a call  for  information  from  the 
officers  of  this  association  is  an  experience  to  which  we  are  entirely  un- 
accustomed. 

The  inquiry  naturally  suggests  itself,  why  has  the  information  been 
withheld  by  so  many  manufacturers  ? Various  reasons  for  this  action 
may  be  assigned.  Many  manufacturers  do  not  keep  their  accounts  with 
sufficient  minuteness  to  enable  them  to  give  the  information  requested  ; 
others  naturally  shrink  from  exposing  the  details  of  their  business  to 
any  person,  fearing  that  they  might  even  by  accident  be  seen  by  their 
rivals ; others  do  not  care  to  take  the  trouble  to  compile  the  details; 
others  believe  that  the  details  if  'given  would  fall  into  the  hands  of 
Government  officials  who  are  not  experts,  and  who  would,  therefore, 
be  liable  to  misunderstand  or  misconstrue  them;  while  others  again  de- 
cline to  give  information  because  they  are  earnestly  opposed  to  any  fur- 
ther revision  of  the  tariff,  and  think  that  if  they  would  give  the  details 
requested  they  would  thereby  be  committing  themselves  to  the  sup 
port  of  a policy  which  they  do  not  believe  in.  Whether  or  not  all 
these  reasons  can  be  accepted  as  satisfactory  we  must  respect  the  book- 
keeping difficulties,  the  earnest  convictions,  and  even  the  timidity  of 
business  men  who  represent  large  interests  and  have  much  at  stake. 

THE  CIRCULAR  LETTER  CONSIDERED. 

The  circular  letter  from  the  Department  to  manufacturers  deals  with 
two  important  subjects:  first,  the  question  of  substituting  specific  for  ad 
valorem  duties  as  a remedy  for  frauds  on  the  revenue,  and,  second,  the 
comparative  cost  of  production  of  manufactured  articles  in  this  country 
and  in  other  countries.  In  connection  with  the  first  of  these  subjects 
suggestions  are  requested  concerning  the  feasibility  of  simplifying  the 
tariff  by  the  general  substitution  of  specific  rates  of  duty.  We  will 
consider  these  subjects  in  order. 

SPECIFIC  AND  AD  VALOREM  DUTIES. 

The  Department’s  circular  letter  says  : u Investigations  of  the  meth- 
ods of  entry  and  appraisement  of  imported  merchandise  have  shown 
that  the  tariff  laws  are  largely  evaded  by  undervaluation  wherever  the 
duties  are  levied  ad  valorem.  A remedy  suggested  for  this  evil  is  the 
adoption  of  specilic  duties.”  We  give  our  hearty  assent  to  this  remedy 
so  far  as  its  adoption  is  possible  without  detriment  to  the  revenues  of 
the  Government  or  injury  to  domestic  industries.  Specific  duties  are 
certain,  constant,  and  easily  ascertained  ; ad  valorem  duties  are  uncer- 
tain, variable,  fruitful  of  controversy,  and  exceedingly  liable  to  fraudu- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  349 

lent  evasiori.  One  very  common  method  of  evasion  was  clearly  ex- 
plained by  the  New  York  Times  in  its  issue  for  September  25, 1885. 

A concern  in  France,  for  instance,  may  ship  a lot  of  goods  to  its  representative  here. 
The  goods  may  be  of  a special  quality  to  which  no  common  standard  of  value  can  be 
applied  by  the  appraiser.  Under  such  circumstances  it  is  not  easy  for  the  appraiser 
to  get  at  the  real  value.  Frequently  in  instances  of  this  kind  the  invoices  are  made 
out  at  a very  low  figure  to  enable  the  consignee  to  evade  the  payment  of  the  full 
amount  of  duties  that  would  be  imposed  on  an  honest  valuation.  This  systematic  un- 
dervaluation not  only  cheats  the  Government,  hut  it  is  rapidly  driving  the  domestic 
importerrto  tbe  wall.  The  latter,  not  being  in  collusion  with  the  foreign  manufact- 
urer, of  course  gains  no  advantage. 

We  note  with  pleasure  the  vigorous  efforts  that  are  now  being  made 
by  the  Treasury  Department  to  check  all  undervaluations  of  foreign 
merchandise  that  is  imported  into  the  United  States.  As  protectionists, 
anxious  for  the  prosperity  of  our  whole  country  and  of  all  its  industries, 
we  are  especially  thankful  that  a policy  has  been  adopted  and  adhered 
to  in  the  management  of  our  custom-houses  that  insists  upon  the  full 
measure  of  protection  for  these  industries  that  is  contemplated  by  our 
tariff  laws.  Duties  levied  for  protection  as  well  as  for  revenue  are  of 
little  avail  as  a shield  against  foreign  competition  if  they  are  not  strictly 
enforced.  Many  domestic  industries  have  been  credited  with  possess- 
ing a degree  of  protection  which  they  have  not  really  enjoyed  because 
of  the  lax  administration  of  the  law  which  has  been  made  possible  by 
ad  valorem  duties.  The  British  Government  now  levies  only  specific 
duties,  with  one  exception,  and  for  years  before  it  abandoned  protective 
duties  its  policy  was  largely  the  same.  Our  own  conspicuously  ad  va- 
lorem tariffs  of  1846  and  1857  had  no  precedent  in  the  modern  history 
of  Great  Britain.  It  must  be  added,  however,  that  British  duties, 
whether  they  have  been  specific  or  ad  valorem,  have  always  been  most 
rigorously  enforced. 

But  ad  valorem  duties  cannot  be  wholly  dispensed  with,  even  if  the 
risk  of  undervaluations  must  continue.  Injustice  to  the  revenue,  the 
domestic  manufacturer,  and  the  domestic  consumer  there  are  many  ar- 
ticles which  cannot  wisely  be  subjected  solely  to  specific  duties. 
Gloves  and  hosiery,  watches  and  jewelry,  cutlery  and  fire-arms,  ma- 
chinery, silks,  velvets,  and  satins,  clothing,  cloths,  and  fine  carpets,  for 
instance,  having  varying  values,  could  not  properly  be  subjected  to 
specific  duties  alone  at  so  much  per  pound  or  per  yard.  Such  articles 
must  continue  to  be  subjected  to  ad  valorem  duties,  and  some  of  them 
to  both  specific  and  ad  valorem  rates. 

The  duties  which  are  now  imposed  on  iron  and  steel  and  manufactures 
thereof  are  chiefly  specific.  We  do  not  recommend  any  change  from 
specific  to  ad  valorem  rates  in  any  of  these  duties.  The  few  articles  of 
iron  and  steel  that  are  subject  to  ad  valorem  rates  alone  are  as  follows. 
The  paragraphs  are  given  as  numbered  in  the  indexed  tariff  of  the 
Treasury  Department : 

148.  Bar-iron,  rolled  or  hammered,  and  all  iron  in  slabs,  blooms,  loops,  or  other 
forms  less  finished  than  iron  in  bars,  and  more  advanced  than  pig-iron,  except  cast- 
ings, shall  pay  a duty  of  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem,  whenever  the  specific  rates 
provided  for  these  articles  would  not  yield  this  proportion  of  their  invoice  value. 

151.  Sheet  iron  thinner  than  number  twenty-nine  wire  gauge,  and  all  iron  commer- 
cially known  as  common  or  black  taggers  iron,  whether  put  up  iu  boxes  or  bundles, 
or  not,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

155.  Iron  and  steel  cotton-ties,  or  hoops  for  baling  purposes,  not  thinner  than  num- 
ber twenty  wire  gauge,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

174.  Circular  saws,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

175.  Hand,  back,  and  all  other  saws,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for,  forty 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

177.  Steel  ingots,  cogged  ingots,  blooms,  and  slabs,  by  whatever  process  made;  die 


350  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


blocksor  blanks ; billetsand  bars  and  tapered  or  beveled  bars ; bands,  hoops,  strips,  and 
sheets  of  all  gauges  and  widths;  plates  of  all  thicknesses  and  widths;  steamer,  crank, 
and  other  shafts;  wrist  or  crank  pfns;  connecting-rods  and  piston-rods;  pressed, 
sheared,  or  stamped  shapes,  or  blanks  of  sheet  or  plate  steel,  or  combination  of  steel 
and  iron,  punched  or  not  punched;  hammer-moulds  or  swaged  steel;  gun-moulds, 
not  in  bars  ; alloys  used  as  substitutes  for  steel  tools;  all  descriptions  and  shapes  of 
dry  sand,  loam,  or  iron-moulded  steel  castings,  all  of  the  above  classes,  of  steel  not 
otherwise  specially  provided  for,  valued  at  four  cents  a pound  or  less,  forty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

183.  Steel,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for,  forty-five  per  centum  ad'va - 
lorem. 

197.  Cutlery,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  va- 
lorem. 

199.  Steel  plates,  engraved,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

202.  Muskets,  rifles,  and  other  fire-arms,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for, 
twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

203.  All  sporting  breech-loading  shot-guns,  and  pistols  of  all  kinds,  thirty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

204.  Forged  shot-gun  barrels,  rough-bored,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

205.  Needles  for  knitting  or  sewing  machines,  thirty -five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

206.  Needles,  sewing,  darning,  knitting,  and  all  others  not  specially  enumerated  or 
provided  for,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

207.  Pen-knives,  pocket-knives,  of  all  kinds,  and  razors,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem  ; 
swords,  sword-blades,  and  side-arms,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

208.  Pen-holder  tips  and  pen-holders,  or  parts  thereof,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

214.  Chromate  of  iron,  or  chromic  ore,  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

215.  Mineral  substances  in  a crude  state  and  metals  unwrought,  not  specially 
enumerated  or  provided  for,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

216.  Manufactures,  articles,  or  wares,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for, 
composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  iron,  steel,  copper,  lead,  nickel,  pewter,  tin,  zinc,  gold, 
silver,  platinum,  or  any  other  metal,  and  whether  partly  or  wholly  manufactured, 
forty-five  per  centum. 

We  do  not  suggest  any  changes  in  the  rates  of  duty  named  in  any 
of  these  paragraphs  except  in  those  numbered  151,  155,  177,  and  183. 
Ad  valorem  rates  in  all  these  paragraphs  except  those  named  appear 
to  us  to  be  absolutely  necessary  to  secure  to  the  Government  the  reve- 
nue to  which  it  is  justly  entitled  and  to  guard  the  domestic  manufact- 
urer against  destructive  foreign  competition.  The  character  of  the 
articles  mentioned  in  these  paragraphs  will  show  at  a glance  that  duties 
levied  by  weight  could  not  equitably  to  any  interest  be  imposed  on  any 
of  them.  There  remain  then  for  our  consideration  the  duties  imposed 
in  paragraphs  151,  155,  177,  and  183. 

In  paragraph  No.  151  the  duty  on  common  or  black  sheet  iron  thin- 
ner than  No.  29  wire  gauge  and  on  common  or  black  taggers  iron  is 
stated  to  be  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Experience  has  shown  that  this 
duty  is  too  low  to  be  protective  of  our  sheet  iron  manufacturers  who  are 
prepared  to  manufacture  the  finer  qualities  of  sheet  iron  and  taggers 
iron,  the  latter  being  the  thinnest  sheet  iron  that  is  made.  The  duty 
is  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  the  duties  on  thicker  sheet  iron.  The 
thinner  the  sheet  irou,  the  more  labor  is  employed  upon  it  and  the  more 
valuable  it  is ; hence  the  duty  imposed  upon  it  should  be  higher  than 
on  thicker  sheet  iron.  But  the  duty  of  30  per  cent,  on  sheet  iron  thin- 
ner than  No.  29  and  on  taggers  iron  is  really  much  less  than  that  which 
Congress  has  imposed  on  the  thicker  forms  of  sheet  iron.  The  specific 
duty  on  sheet  irou  thicker  than  No.  29  ranges  from  1.1  cents  to  1J  cents 
per  pound.  An  examination  of  the  Government  statistics  shows  that 
in  the  fiscal  year  1884,  which  was  the  first  under  the  tariff  of  1883,  there 
were  entered  for  immediate  consumption,  and  withdrawn  from  ware- 
house 1,834  tons  of  taggers  irou,  valued  at  $119,759,  the  ad  valorem 
duty  upon  which  amounted  to  $35,927.70,  or  $19.G0  per  ton,  which  is  less 
than  1 cent  per  pound.  In  the  same  fiscal  year  10  tons  of  sheet  iron 
thinner  than  No.  29  were  entered  and  withdrawn,  valued  at  $717,  upon 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


351 


which  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  $215.10  was  paid,  or  $21.51  per  ton,  which 
also  is  less  than  1 cent  per  pound.  The  probability  is  that  a large  por- 
tion of  the  1,834  tons  of  “taggers  iron77  was  really  sheet  iron  of  sizes 
near  to  but  thicker  than  No.  20,  and  it  should  therefore  have  paid 
a specific  duty.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  manufacture  of  taggers  non 
is  not  to  day  an  American  industry,  and  that  the  manufacture  of  thin 
sheet  iron  is  a sickly  industry.  The  duty  on  the  thinnest  forms  of  sheet 
iron  up  to  taggers  iron  gauges,  which  begin  with  No.  36,  should  cer- 
tainly be  as  high  as  that  on  No.  25  to  No.  29,  which  is  is  l£  cents  per 
pound,  while  taggers  iron  should  pay  a still  higher  duty. 

In  paragraph  No.  155  the  duty  on  cotton-ties  is  stated  to  be  35  per  cent, 
ad  valorem.  This  duty  has  been  found  to  be  inadequate  for  the  protec- 
tion of  our  cotton-tie  manufacturers,  very  few  cotton- ties  being  now  made 
in  this  country.  In  the  fiscal  year  already  referred  to  there  were  entered 
and  withdrawn  for  consumption  16,182  tons  of  foreign-made  cotton-ties, 
aggregating  in  value  at  the  places  of  manufacture  $540,240.57,  and  pay- 
ing a duty  amounting  to  $189,190.78,  or  $11.70  per  ton,  which  is  but 
little  more  than  one-half  cent  per  pound.  The  inadequacy  of  the  35  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  duty  as  a check  to  foreign  competition  is  seen  in  the 
very  large  importations  of  the  last  few  years,  and  its  absurdity  and  in- 
justice will  be  made  strikingly  apparent  when  it  is  compared  with  the 
higher  duties  on  bar-iron.  Cotton-ties  require  very  much  more  labor 
than  bar-iron,  and  their  cost  is  therefore  much  greater.  The  action  of 
Congress  in  imposing  an  ad  valorem  rate  which  yields  but  little  more 
than  one-half  cent  per  pound  is  one  of  those  obvious  errors  in  leg- 
islation which  should  be  speedily  corrected.  Of  course  there  is  good 
ground  for  the  suspicion  that  the  foreign  cost  is  undervalued.  The  duty 
should  .be  made  specific,  and  should  not  be  less  than  that  which  is 
charged  on  the  smallest  sizes  of  bar-iron,  namely  1.1  cents  per  pound. 

In  paragraph  No.  177  the  duty  on  various  enumerated  forms  of  steel, 
valued  at  4 cents  per  pound  or  less,  is  stated  to  be  45  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem. A valid  objection  to  this  duty  is  that  it  open's  the  door  to  under- 
valuations upon  a large  class  of  miscellaneous  steel  products.  In  the 
fiscal  year  1884  there  were  entered  and  withdrawn  from  consumption, 
under  the  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty,  12,786  tons  of  steel  bars  and  bil- 
lets. valued  at  $370,879,  upon  which  the  duty  amounted  to  $167,470.76, 
or  $13.10  per  ton ; also  5,156  tons  of  steel  ingots,  blooms,  and  slabs, 
valued  at  $120,560,  upon  which  the  duty  amounted  to  $54,252,  or  $10.52 
per  ton.  The  average  duty  collected  on  all  these  articles  was  a very 
small  fraction  more  than  one  half  cent  per  pound.  There  would  ap- 
pear to  be  no  sufficient  check  upon  the  obvious  temptation  to  enter 
for  duty  steel  worth  2 and  3 cents  a pound  at  1 cent  or  even  less  per 
pound.  Apart  from  this  consideration  there  is  a manifest  impropriety 
in  subjecting  steel  valued  at  4 cents  per  pound  or  less  to  an  ad 
valorem  duty  which  realizes  only  about  one-half  cent  per  pound,  while 
steel  valued  above  4 cents  per  pound  and  less  than  7 cents  is  made 
dutiable  at  2 cents  per  pound.  A classification  of  this  kind  is  sure  to 
invite  fraud  in  entering  steel  in  the  4-cent  clause  which  should  be  in- 
voiced above  4 cents.  The  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  on  steel  valued 
at  4 cents  per  pound  or  less  should  be  changed  if  possible  to  a specific 
duty  approximating  that  which  is  imposed  on  steel  valued  above  4 cents. 
This  would  tend  to  prevent  frauds  and  afford  more  adequate  protection 
to  domestic  steel  manufacturers.  If  it  be  objected  that  much  of  the 
steel  that  is  imported  under  the  4%  per  cent,  duty  is  worth  very  much 
less  than  4 cents  per  pound,  we  reply  that  the  cheapness  of  foreign 
products  is  the  feature  of  foreign  competition  against  which  protective 


352 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


duties  are  required.  If  duties  are  made  sufficiently  high  to  be  ade- 
quately protective  home  competition  may  be  depended  upon  to  keep 
home  prices  within  reasonable  limits. 

In  paragraph  Ho.  183  the  duty  on  steel  not  specially  enumerated  or 
provided  for  is  also  given  at  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  This  provision 
cannot  be  objected  to  per  .se,  but  objection  may  property  be  made  to  its 
covering  articles  which  should  have  been  specifically  enumerated.  We 
mention  one  conspicuous  illustration,  namely,  steel  wire  rods  lighter 
than  Ho.  5 wire  gauge,  and  valued  at  3J  cents  or  less  per  pound.  They 
are  nowhere  provided  for  by  name,  but  both  iron  and  steel  wire  rods 
above  Ho.  5 are  enumerated.  Why  should  the  finer  and  more  valuable 
product  be  placed  in  an  omnibus  clause,  and  subjected  to  an  ad  valorem 
rate  which  may  be  evaded,  while  the  coarser  forms  of  the  same  article 
are  carefully  enumerated  and  subjected  to  a specific  rate?  Considerable 
quantities  of  wire  rods  lighter  than  Ho.  5 are  imported,  and  although 
the  Government  does  not  advise  us  of  the  quantity  and  value  of  these 
importations,  we  are  informed  that  the  foreign  invoice  yields  to  the  rev- 
enue about  111. 50  per  ton,  which  is  less  than  the  duty  of  .6  cent  per 
pound,  or  $13.44  per  ton,  which  is  imposed  on  the  less  valuable  wire 
rods  not  lighter  than  Ho.  5.  By  making  the  duty  .8  cent  per  pound 
on  wire  rods  lighter  than  Ho.  5,  and  valued  at  3J  cents  or  less  per 
pound,  it  would  harmonize  with  that  on  the  larger  gauges,  and  our  wire- 
rod  manufacturers  would  not  be  subjected  to  unfair  competition,  of  the 
injurious  effects  of  which  they  justly  complain. 

In  dismissing  that  part  of  the  circular  letter  which  relates  to  the  sub- 
stitution of  specific  for  ad  valorem  duties  we  call  special  attention  to  the 
fact  that,  even  if  it  were  possible  always  to  secure  honest  valuations, 
ad  valorem  duties  do  not  afford  protection  to  domestic  manufacturers 
when  it  is  most  needed.  When  foreign  products  are  entered  at  low 
prices  ad  valorem  rates  yield  correspondingly  low  duties,  and  this  hap- 
pens when  the  imported  products  by  their  cheapness  most  dangerously 
menace  the  home  manufacture  of  like  products.  If  pig-iron,  for  instance, 
were  subject  to  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  50  per  cent,  the  duty  would  be  $5 
ner  ton  when  the  foreign  value  is  $10,  and  it  would  be  $7.50  per  ton 
when  the  foreign  value  is  $15.  It  will  readily  be  seen  that  the  domestic 
manufacturer  would  need  the  $7.50  duty  more  when  foreign  pig-iron  is 
$10  per  ton  than  he  would  need  $5  duty  when  it  is  $15  per  ton.  We 
believe,  therefore,  that,  whenever  it  is  practicable,  and  not  positively 
injurious  to  any  American  interest,  specific  duties  should  be  substituted 
for  ad  valorem  rates. 

SPECIFIC  DUTIES  WHICH  ARE  TOO  LOW. 

In  this  connection  it  seems  proper  that  due  consideration  should  also 
be  given  to  certain  specific  duties  in  the  metal  schedule  which  are  nom- 
inally imposed  for  the  protection  of  domestic  manufacturers,  but  which 
really  protect  only  their  foreign  rivals.  We  allude  to  the  duty  of  1 
cent  per  pound  on  tin  plates,  and  to  the  duty  of  .6  cent  per  pound  on 
iron  and  steel  wire  rods  not  lighter  than  Ho.  5.  That  these  duties  arc 
not  adequately  protective  is  shown  by  the  most  significant  facts.  This 
country  does  not  manufacture  one  box  of  tin  plates,  Great  Britain  sup 
plying  our  entire  demand.  Our  iron  wire-rod  industry  is  practically  an 
extinct  industry,  Sweden  and  Germany  now  making  nearly  all  the  iron 
wire  rods  we  need.  Our  steel  wire-rod  industry  is  subjected  to  the 
severest  competition  with  the  same  industry  in  Germany  and  Great 
Britain.  The  following  statement  of  our  importations  of  tin  plates  and 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


353 


iron  and  steel  wire  rods  in  the  fiscal  year  1884  is  compiled  from  theGovern- 
ment  statistics,  bat  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  more  steel  wire  rods 
are  imported  than  these  figures  indicate,  owing  to  the  grouping  of  rods 
lighter  than  No.  5 with  “ steel  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided 
for:” 


Articles. 

Gross  tons. 

Value. 

Duty  collected. 

Tin  plates 

235,  661 
35, 839 
50, 158 

$18,931,072  70 
1,  569,  397  52 
1,812,957  71 

$5,  278,  848  25 
481,  671  04 
674, 162  55 

Iron  wire  rods  

Steel  wire  rods  not  lighter  than  If o.  5 

The  magnitude  of  the  importations  of  tin  plates  is  yet  more  signifi- 
cantly shown  in  the  following  table  of  the  total  importations  and  with- 
drawals from  warehouse  for  consumption  of  iron  and  steel  and  iron  ore 
in  the  fiscal  year  above  mentioned  : 


Articles. 

Value. 

Per  cent, 
of  whole 
value. 

Duty  collected. 

Average, 
ad  valorem. 

Tin  plates 

$18, 931,  072  70 
23,  986,  674  66 

44 

$5,  278,  848  25 
9,  531,  213  07 

27. 88 

All  other  iron  and  steel 

56 

39.  69 

Total 

42,  917,  747  36 

J00 

14,  810,  061  32 

34.  48 

From  this  table  it  will  be  seen  that  44  per  cent,  of  the  total  importa- 
tions of  iron  and  steel  entered  and  withdrawn  from  warehouse  for  con- 
sumption in  the  fiscal  year  1884' consisted  of  tin  plates,  the  specific 
duty  of  1 cent  per  pound  on  which  was  equivalent  to  about  28  per  cent, 
of  their  foreign  value.  That  the  importations  of  tin  plates  in  the  fiscal 
year  1884  were  not  exceptionally  large  is  shown  by  a further  reference 
to  the  Government  statistics.  The  importations  of  tin  plates  in  the 
last  five  calendar  years  were  as  follows  : 


Calendar  years. 

Gross  tons. 

Value. 

1880 

158,049 
183,  005 
213,987 
221,  233 
216, 181 

$16, 478, 110 
14,  886,  907 
17,  975, 161 
18, 156,  773 
16,  858,  650 

1881 

1882 

1883 

1884 

Total 

992,  455 

84,  355,  601 

These  figures  show  that  in  five  years  we  have  imported  nearly  a mill- 
ion tons  of  tin  plates,  for  which  we  paid  the  British  manufacturers 
nearly  $85,000,000.  If  there  had  existed  any  necessity  for  this  large 
importation,  as  in  the  case  of  articles  that  this  country  is  not  capable 
of  producing,  it's  magnitude  might  be  worthy  of  only  a passing  thought; 
but  it  is  a most  serious  matter  to  send  $17,000,000  annually  out  of  the 
country  to  pay  for  an  article  which  we  could  ourselves  produce  if  the 
Government  would  foster  its  manufacture  as  it  has  fostered  and  is  still 
fosteriug  other  useful  industries.  Tin  plates  are  only  sheet-iron  or 
sheet-steel  coated  with  tin,  or  with  a mixture  of  tin  and  lead,  and  it 
will  not  be  contended  by  any  intelligent  person  that  we  could  not  make 
them  as  easily  as  they  are  made  in  England  and  Wales.  Our  skill  as 
iron  and  steel  manufacturers  is  equal  to  that  of  any  other  people;  we 
produce  our  own  lead,  and  we  can  obtain  tin  from  the  same  countries 
which  supply  Great  Britain.  The  only  reason  why  we  do  not  make  the 
tin  plates  that  we  need  is  the  insufficiency  of  the  duty,  which  is  not 
S.  Ex.  72 23 


354 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


equal  to  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production  in  this  country  and 
in  Great  Britain.  The  duty  should  be  at  least  doubled  ; instead  of  be- 
ing 1 cent  per  pound  it  should  be  at  least  2 cents.  The  present  duty  is 
a purely  revenue  duty  ; it  protects  no  American  interest,  but  gives  to 
British  manufacturers  the  monopoly  of  supplying  our  markets  with  tin 
plates. 

Tin  plates  are  a highly-finished  metallurgical  product,  and  much  labor 
and  skill  are  required  in  the  final  stages  of  their  manufacture.  But  it 
is  well  to  consider  also  the  vast  quantities  of  raw  materials  and  the  vast 
amount  of  labor  that  enter  into  the  primary  and  intermediate  stages  of 
the  production  of  so  large  a quantity  of  foreign-made  tin  plates  as  this 
country  annually  consumes.  Why  should  we  not  utilize  our  own  re- 
sources for  the  manufacture  of  the  tin  plates  we  need?  Why  not  em- 
ploy our  own  labor  instead  of  the  labor  of  another  country  in  supplying 
this  want?  Establish  in  this  country  a tin  plate  industry  through  the 
agency  of  a protective  duty,  and  the  same  beneficial  results  to  consum- 
ers that  have  followed  the  establishment  of  our  steel-rail  industry  may 
confidently  be  looked  for.  No  American  industry  that  has  been  ade- 
quately protected  has  ever  increased  to  consumers  the  cost  of  its  prod- 
ucts. If  we  had  a thoroughly  protected  tin-plate  industry  it  would 
form  no  exception  to  this  rule. 

The  duty  on  iron  wire  rods  under  the  tariff  which  was  in  force  prior 
to  the  30th  of  June,  1883,  was  1J  cents  per  pound,  and  that  on  steel 
wire  rods  was  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  present  duty  of  .0  ceut  per 
pound  on  iron  wire  rods  has  greatly  increased  their  importation  and 
correspondingly  decreased  their  domestic  production . Many  of  our  iron 
wire-rod  mills  were  compulsorily  closed  soon  after  the  new  duty  went 
into  operation,  and  they  remain  closed  to  day.  The  old  duty  of  1J  cents 
per  pound  should  be  restored.  The  duty  on  steel  wire  rods  not  lighter 
than  number  5 wire  gauge  and  valued  at  3J  cents  or  less  per  pound  was 
changed  by  the  act  of  March  3,  1883,  from  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  to  .G 
cent  per  pound.  The  new  duty  is  not  so  protective  as  it  should  be,  im- 
portations being  still  large,  as  the  statistics  we  have  given  will  show. 

The  demand  for  iron  and  steel  wire  rods  has  greatly  increased  in  this 
country  in  recent  years,  chiefly  because  they  are  the  raw  materials  for 
telegraph  and  telephone  wire  and  wire  fencing,  as  well  as  for  other  pur- 
poses. It  is  a matter  of  importance,  therefore,  that  we  should  properly 
encourage  the  manufacture  of  both  these  products,  which  in  the  primary, 
intermediate,  and  finished  processes  of  their  manufacture  require  much 
labor  and  consume  large  quantities  of  the  raw  materials  which  enter 
into  all  iron  and  steel  products.  No  consuming  interest  can  suffer  by 
the  manufacture  at  home  of  all,  or  nearly  all,  these  articles  that  are 
needed  to  supply  the  domestic  demand.  Such  protection  as  has  been 
given  to  our  steel  wire-rod  industry  has  certainly  not  increased  the  cost 
of  wire  fencing  to  the  American  farmer.  It  never  was  so  cheap  as  it 
has  been  during  the  past  twelve  months. 

FURTHER  CONSIDERATION  OF  THE  DUTIES  ON  IRON  AND  STEEL. 

The  value  of  all  the  iron  and  steel  and  manufactures  thereof  and  iron 
ore  that  was  entered  and  withdrawn  from  warehouse  for  consumption 
in  the  fiscal  year  1884  was  $42,917,747.36.  The  duty  collected  on  these 
iron  and  steel  commodities  was  $14,810,001.32.  The  average  ad  valorem 
rate  on  the  whole  importation  of  iron  and  steel  and  manufactures 
thereof  and  also  on  iron  ore  was  34.48  per  cent.  This  average  is  low 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  fiscal  year  1884  was  a year  of  low  prices, 
which  had  the  effect  of  advancing  the  ad  valorem  equivalent  of  specific 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


355 


duties.  The  average  is  also  low  when  compared  with  the  average  duty 
collected  on  all  dutiable  goods  entered  for  consumption  and  withdrawn 
from  warehouse  in  the  fiscal  year  1884,  which  was  41.61  per  cent.  These 
statistics  are  presented  to  show  that  our  iron  and  steel  industries  enjoy 
no  undue  advantage  in  the  present  tariff  over  other  industries.  On  the 
contrary,  we  have  pointed  out  some  of  the  disadvantages  which  have 
been  imposed  on  them  by  the  new  tariff. 

There  are  certain  theorists  who  contend  that,  because  pig  iron  can  be 
cheaply  made  in  some  Southern  States,  a protective  duty  on  this  article 
is  not  needed  by  the  country  at  large,  and  that  the  South  should  be  per 
initted  to  make  all  the  pig  iron  that  the  country  requires,  t his  is  a 
very  short-sighted  view,  even  if  it  were  possible  for  the  South  to  supply 
so  large  a quantity  of  pig  iron.  Because  there  is  natural  gas  at  Pitts- 
burgh shall  all  the  bar  iron  and  all  the  nails  and  all  the  glass  that  the 
country  needs  be  made  there  ? Because  cotton  goods  can  be  cheaply 
manufactured  in  New  England  shall  no  other  section  of  the  country 
build  cotton  factories'?  Because  the  valleys  are  fertile  shall  the  hill 
sides  not  be  cultivated  ? We  rejoice  at  the  rapid  growth  of  the  pig-iron 
industry  of  the  South,  but  the  best  friends  of  this  industry  see  clearly 
that  its  prosperity  could  not  have  been  achieved  without  the  help  of  a 
protective  duty.  The  principal  market  for  Southern  pig-iron  is  in  the 
North,  and  to  reach  this  market  from  $3  to  $4  per  ton  must  be  paid  for 
freight.  This  freight  brings  the  cost  of  Southern  pig-iron  at  the  places 
where  it  is  consumed  in  line  with  the  cost  of  Northern  pig-iron.  If  a 
purely  revenue  duty,  in  other  words,  a low  duty,  had  been  imposed  on 
foreign  pig-iron  in  recent  years  Southern  pig-iron  would  have  been  com- 
pelled to  meet  a more  active  foreign  competition  and  lower  prices  in  the 
North  than  it  has  encountered,  and  if  it  had  met  with  this  opposition 
its  manufacture  certainly  could  not  have  prospered.  Reduce  the  duty 
on  pig-iron  to-day  and  the  Southern  pig-iron  that  is  now  sold  in  the 
North  would  largely  be  replaced  by  the  still  cheaper  foreign  pig-iron. 
We  prefer  to  see  Southern  pig-iron  coming  North  in  increasing  quanti- 
ties rather  than  to  see  an  increase  in  our  consumption  of  foreign  pig- 
iron  ; we  put  the  prosperity  of  every  section  of  our  own  country  before 
that  of  any  other  country. 

Objection  is  sometimes  made  to  the  imposition  of  any  duty  on  iron 
ore  because  it  is  a raw  material,  a free  gift  of  nature.  There  are  honest 
differences  of  opinion  among  believers  in  the  protective  policy  concern- 
ing the  amount  of  the  duty  which  should  be  imposed  on  this  article,  but 
there  can  be  no  difference  of  opinion  among  them  concerning  the  duty 
of  the  Government  to  shield  from  injurious  foreign  competition  every 
American  industry  that  is  in  need  of  its  fostering  care.  Our  iron-ore 
industry  is  unquestionably  such  an  industry.  We  have  iron  ore  m 
abundance  in  many  States.  The  unrestricted  importation,  that  is  to 
say,  the  free  importation,  of  foreign  iron  ore  would  have  a strong  tend- 
ency to  close  many  of  our  own  iron-ore  mines  and  to  reduce  the  wages 
of  the  workingmen  who  would  be  employed  in  operating  the  remainder. 
We  protest  against  the  adoption  of  this  policy,  which  is  based  upon  the 
theory  that  iron  ore  is  a raw  material.  When  taken  from  the  mine  and 
marketed  it  is  the  product  of  labor  ; its  value  is  almost  entirely  due  to 
the  labor  that  is  employed  in  its  development.  Ignore  the  claims  to 
protection  of  the  American  iron-ore  industry,  because  iron  ore  is  a raw 
material,  and  with  as  much  reason  the  claims  to  protection  of  almost 
every  other  American  industry  could  be  ignored.  Pig-iron  is  a raw  ma- 
terial to  the  bar  iron  manufacturer,  and  bar  iron  is  a raw  material  to  the 
car  builder  and  the  wagon  and  carriage  manufacturer.  The  principle 
involved  in  the  protection  of  the  iron-ore  producer  is  precisely  the  same 


356  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


as  that  which  is  involved  in  the  protection  of  the  pig-iron  manufacturer 
and  the  bar-iron  manufacturer.  Protectionists  could  not  consistently 
or  justly  asseut  to  a policy  which  would  shield  from  injurious  foreign 
competition  the  domestic  capital  and  labor  that  are  enlisted  in  some  in- 
dustries and  at  the  same  time  expose  to  this  competition  another  in- 
dustry which  also  employs  home  capital  and  home  labor.  Protection 
to  American  industry  is  a principle  and  not  an  expedient.  Iron  and 
steel  manufacturers  therefore  do  not  wish  to  see  iron  ore  placed  in  the 
free  list,  or  bituminous  coal  and  coke. 

THE  COST  OF  PRODUCING  IRON  AND  STEEL. 

We  now  come  to  consider  that  part  of  the  circular  letter  which  relates 
to  the  comparative  cost  of  production  of  manufactured  articles  in  this 
country  and  in  other  countries.  Owing  to  circumstances  which  have 
already  been  explained  we  are  unable  to  present  detailed  statistics  of  the 
cost  of  production  of  iron  and  steel  in  this  country.  Only  fragmentary 
information  has  been  received.  Such  information  as  we  may  give  will 
not  pretend  to  embody  perfect  averages  of  cost  of  production  for  the 
whole  country. 

With  regard  to  the  cost  of  producing  iron  aud  steel  in  competing 
countries  we  have  not  believed  it  to  be  necessary  to  attempt  to  ascer- 
tain the  elements  of  this  cost,  assuming  that  for  all  practical  purposes 
the  prices  at  which  these  products  have  recently  been  sold  may  be  ac- 
cepted as  an  approximation  to  their  actual  and  usual  cost.  Foreigu 
iron  and  steel  markets  have  not  recently  been  excited  from  any  cause, 
while  it  may  truthfully  be  said  that  low  juices  are  the  rule  rather  thau 
the  exception  in  all  European  countries.  Economic  conditions  are  more 
circumscribed  and  exacting  and  therefore  more  stable  in  those  countries 
than  in  our  own ; labor  is  more  at  the  mercy  of  capital ; foreign  markets 
are  more  sought  after  ; hence  prices  and  cost  of  production  are  always 
lower  and  more  uniform  thau  with  us.  In  such  illustrative  references 
as  we  may  make  to  foreigu  competition  with  our  own  people  in  the 
manufacture  of  iron  and  steel  we  shall  assume,  therefore,  that  the  foreign 
price  to-day  approximates  the  usual  foreigu  cost. 

The  returns  which  we  have  received  of  the  average  cost  of  production 
of  pig-iron  at  a number  of  blastfurnaces  in  1882,  1883,  and  1884,  while 
possibly  varying  from  a true  average  of  this  cost  for  the  country  at 
large,  enable  us  to  reach  the  true  relation  of  the  cost  of  the  labor  em- 
ployed in  producing  a ton  of  pig-iron  to  the  cost  of  all  the  other  ele- 
ments entering  into  its  production.  Of  these  furnaces  some  used  anthra- 
cite and  bituminous  coal  aud  others  used  charcoal.  The  returns  show 
that  the  total  average  cost  of  producing  a gross  ton  of  pig-iron  at  these 
furnaces  in  the  years  mentioned  was  as  follows : 


! Anthracite 
and  bitu- 
minous. 

Charcoal. 

Labor  in  prod lining  raw  materials .... 

$10  26 
1 78 
1 91 

$9  62 
3 17 
2 44 

Labor  in  transporting  raw  materials 

Labor  at  furnace,  including  repairs 

Total  cost  of  labor 

13  95 
5 22 

15  23 
5 18 

Taxes,  insurance,  commissions,  office  expenses,  interest,  freight,  traveling  ex- 
penses, royalties,  &c 

Total  cost  of  a ton  of  pig-iron 

Percflntao'o  (»f  labor  cost  to  total  cost 

19  17 
73 

20  41 
74 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  35? 

The  anthracite  and  bituminous  furnaces  referred  to  above  used  an 
average  of  2.08  tons  of  iron  ore,  1.54  tons  of  fuel,  and  1.04  tons  of  lime- 
stone in  making  a ton  of  pig-iron,  and  the  charcoal  furnaces  used  an 
average  of  2.3  tons  of  iron  ore,  137  bushels  of  charcoal,  and  .29  ton  of 
limestone.  The  furnaces  which  supply  the  foregoing  averages  are 
widely  separated,  some  are  old-fashioned  in  construction,  and  few  of 
them  use  the  rich  ores  of  Lake  Superior.  All  are,  however,  among  our 
good  and  well-managed  furnaces,  but  only  a few  are  among  the  newest 
and  best  equipped. 

We  have  taken  the  average  of  the  years  1882, 1883,  and  1884,  instead 
of  the  present  year,  for  the  reason  that  labor  in  the  iron  industry  in 
this  country  is  paid  less  in  1885  than  it  should  receive,  and  less  than  it 
has  been  accustomed  to  receive.  The  average  wages  paid  in  1882,  1883, 
and  1884,  which  were  years  of  fair  prosperity  for  this  country,  cannot 
be  taken  exception  to. 

The  foregoing  details  show  that  73  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  producing 
a ton  of  pig-iron  with  anthracite  or  bituminous  coal  in  the  years  men- 
tioned was  paid  in  wages  to  labor,  and  that  74  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of 
producing  a ton  of  charcoal  pig-iron  in  the  same  years  was  similarly 
paid.  Taking  these  percentages,  and  assuming,  as  we  may  correctly 
assume,  that  the  same  proportions  hold  good  from  year  to  year,  we  find 
that  labor — the  labor  which  toils  hard  with  its  hands  and  with  bent 
back — receives  very  nearly  three-fourths  of  the  cost  of  producing  a ton 
of  pig-iron  in  this  country.  This  calculation  excludes  clerical  labor, 
and  the  labor  of  the  tax  gatherer,  the  insurance  agent,  the  commission 
merchant,  and  all  others.  The  workingman,  therefore,  has  the  greatest 
stake  in  the  duty  which  protects  our  pig-iron  industry  against  the  com- 
petition of  the  foreign  producer  of  pig-iron. 

What  is  the  measure  of  this  competition  % Primarily,  and  for  present 
purposes  of  comparison,  it  is  the  price  at  which  foreign  pig-iron  is  sold 
for  shipment  to  our  market.  As  we  have  already  explained,  the  present 
prices  of  iron  and  steel  abroad  may  be  regarded  as  approximating  the 
usual  prices  of  these  articles,  and  pig-iron  forms  no  exception  to  this 
rule.  We  find  by  reference  to  the  foreign  market  reports  for  October 
last  that  the  prices  of  English  and  Scotch  pig  iron  were  then  as  follows  : 


English 

money. 

United 

States 

money. 

Nos.  1,  2,  and  3 West  Coast  hematite  (Bessemer)  f.  o.  b 

s.  d. 
43  6 
37  0 
43  0 
48  6 

$10  r»8 

9 00 

10  45 

11  80 

No.  1 Middlesbrough  (Cleveland  cold-short}  f.  o.  b.  ship 

No.  1 Eglinton  (Scotch)  alongside  ship 

No.  1 Coltness  (Scotch)  alongside  ship  „ 

It  will  be  seen  from  a comparison  of  these  figures  with  those  given 
above  that  the  price  per  ton  at  which  foreign  pig-iron  can  be  put  on 
board  vessels  for  shipment  to  the  United  States  is  several  dollars  less 
than  the  labor  cost  of  a ton  of  pig-iron  in  this  country  when  the  wages 
paid  are  an  average  of  those  which  prevailed  in  1882,  1883,  and  1884. 
The  highest  price  above  quoted  for  foreign  pig-iron  is  $11.80,  while  the 
lowest  average  labor  cost  of  a ton  of  pig-iron  in  this  country  in  the 
years  named  was  $13.95.  This  cost  was,  however,  only  73  per  cent,  of 
the  total  cost,  and  if  allowance  be  made  for  the  remaining  27  per  cent, 
of  this  total  cost  it  will  be  'seen  at  a glance  that  the  present  duty  of 
$0.72  per  ton  on  pig-iron  is  uot  equal  to  the  difference  between  the  total 


358  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

cost  at  home  and  the  price  abroad.  The  cost  of  transporting  pig-iron 
from  European  to  American  seaports  is  no  hindrance  to  its  sale  in  our 
markets.  The  freight  on  pig-iron  from  Glasgow  to  New  York  was  only 
50  cents  per  ton  in  October  of  the  present  year,  whereas  the  freight  on 
pig-iron  from  the  Lehigh  Valley  to  New  York,  a distance  of  less  than 
100  miles,  averaged  $1. 

The  next  illustration  which  we  shall  give  of  the  comparative  cost  of 
producing  iron  and  steel  in  this  country  and  in  Europe  relates  to  bar 
iron.  The  figures  we  will  quote  for  our  own  country  will  comprise  only 
the  cost  of  the  labor  employed  in  all  the  stages  necessary  to  produce 
from  the  raw  materials  a ton  of  best  refined  bar  iron.  The  period  to 
which  these  figures  refer  is  the  early  part  of  1882.  We  prefer  the  figures 
we  are  about  to  give  to  those  we  have  ourselves  recently  collected 
because  they  are  from  the  hand  of  one  of  the  most  eminent,  painstaking, 
and  capable  of  American  ironmasters,  Mr.  John  Griffen,  now  deceased, 
but  for  many  years  the  superintendent  of  the  Phoenix  Iron  Works,  at 
Phoenixville,  Pa.  In  April,  1882,  Mr.  Grifien  compiled  for  the  American 
Iron  and  Steel  Association  from  the  books  of  the  Phoenix  Iron  Company 
the  following  statement  of  the  labor  cost  to  that  company  of  a ton  of 
best  bar  iron,  which  cost  was  undoubtedly  a fair  average  for  the  country 
at  large : 

1. — Pig  iron. 


Wages  earned  in  raining  enough  ore  for  1 ton  pig  iron -15  18 

Wages  earned  in  mining  enough  limestone  for  1 ton  pig  iron 33 

Wages  earned  in  mining  enough  anthracite  for  1 ton  pig  iron 1 71 

Wages  earned  in  making  enough  coke  for  1 ton  pig  iron 28 

Wages  earned  in  transporting  above  ore 56 

Wages  earned  in  transporting  above  limestone 06 

Wages  earned  in  transporting  above  anthracite 45 

Wages  earned  in  transporting  above  coke 22 

Wages  earned  by  furnace  hands  in  making  1 ton  pig  iron 2 75 


Total  wages  earned  in  making  1 gross  ton  pig  iron 11  54 


2. — Muck  bar. 

[It  requires  1.13  gross  tons  of  pig  iron  to  make  1 gross  ton  of  muck  bar.  If  there 
are  $11.54  labor  earnings  in  1 ton  of  pig  iron,  in  1.13  tons  of  pig  iron,  or  1 ton  of  muck 
bar,  there  are  $13.04.  The  whole  labor  earnings  in  1 gross  ton  of  muck  bar  are  as 
follows:] 


Wages  earned  in  making  1.13  tons  pig  iron $13  04 

Wages  earned  in  mining  coal  used  in  puddling  1 ton  muck  bar 1 71 

Wages  earned  in  mining  ore  used  in  fettling  1 ton  of  muck  bar 90 

Wages  earned  in  transporting  the  above  coal 56 

Wages  earned  in  transporting  the  above  ore 20 

Wages  earned  by  mill  hands  in  making  1 ton  of  muck  bar 7 44 


Total  wages  earned  in  making  1 gross  ton  muck  bar 23  85 


3. — Finished  bar. 

[It  requires  1.20  gross  tons  of  muck  bar  to  make  1 gross  ton  of  fiuished  bar,  ready 
for  the  market.  If  there  are  $23.85  labor  earnings  in  1 ton  of  muck  bar,  in  1.20  tons 
of  muck  bar,  or  l ton  of  finished  bar,  there  are  $28.62.  The  whole  labor  earnings  in 
1 gross  ton  of  fiuished  bar  are  as  follows:] 


Wages  earned  in  making  1.20  tons  muck  bar $28  G2 

Wages  earned  in  mining  coal  used  in  heating  1 ton  fiuished  bar 89 

Wages  earned  in  mining  sand  used  to  1 ton  of  finished  bar 20 

Wages  earned  in  transporting  above  coal 25 

Wages  earned  by  mill  hands  in  making  1 ton  finished  bar 6 31 


Total  wages  earned  in  making  1 gross  ton  of  finished  bar  iron 


36  27 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


359 


4. — Summary. 

[The  three  preceding  statements  represent  the  successive  steps  in  the  transforma- 
tion of  iron  ore,  limestone,  and  fuel  into  bar  iron.  The  following  statement  sum- 
marizes the  whole  operation,  giving  the  quantities  of  raw  materials  used  in  making 
a ton  of  bar  iron  and  the  total  earnings  of  the  labor  employed.] 


Wages  earned  in  preparing  3.53  gross  tons  iron  ore $8  10 

Wages  earned  in  preparing  .88  gross  ton  limestone 45 

Wages  earned  in  preparing  4.84  gross  tons  coal  and  coke 5 64 

Wages  earned  in  preparing  .10  gross  ton  sand 20 

Wages  earned  in  transporting  above  materials 2 91 

Wages  earned  at  blast  furnace  and  in  mill 18  97 


Total  wages  earned  in  making  1 gross  ton  of  finished  bar  iron 36  27 


The  total  cost  of  making  a ton  of  bar  iron  embraces  a number  of  other 
elements,  including  the  cost  of  materials  additional  to  their  labor  cost, 
freight  charges  above  wages  earned  in  transportation,  insurance,  taxes, 
commissions,  interest,  office  expenses,  &c.  This  total  cost  in  the  early 
part  of  1882  was  not  given  by  Mr  Griffen,  but  it  was  about  $50,  which 
would  make  the  labor  cost  of  a ton  of  bar  iron  at  the  period  mentioned 
72  per  cent,  of  the  total  cost.  Substantially  the  same  proportion  of  labor 
cost  to  total  cost  in  the  manufacture  of  bar  iron  undoubtedly  exists  in 
our  rolling  mills  to-day.  The  workingman,  therefore,  has  the  largest 
stake  in  the  duty  on  bar  iron. 

It  is  proper  to  explain  that  the  low  labor  cost  ($11.54)  of  producing  a 
ton  of  pig  iron  by  the  Phoenix  Iron  Company  in  1882  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  company  drew  its  supply  of  iron  ore  mainly  from  its  own 
ore  mines,  which  were  near  at  hand,  and  also  to  the  fact  that  its  sup- 
ply of  coal  was  mainly  drawn  from  near-by  sources,  the  wages  paid  for 
the  transportation  of  these  products  being  therefore  exceptionally  small. 

The  figures  which  have  just  been  given  have  been  used  solely  to  show 
the  relation  of  the  labor  cost  to  the  total  cost  of  a ton  of  bar-iron.  But 
they  have  another  significance.  The  present  exceptionally  low  price  of 
American  bar  iron  of  best  quality  is  about  $39  per  ton ; the  preseut 
price  of  best  Welsh  bar-iron  at  shipping  ports  is  £5,  or  about  $25  ; Bel- 
gian bar-iron  can  be  bought  at  even  lower  prices ; the  duty  is  $17.92. 
A slight  advance  in  the  price  at  home,  if  accompanied  by  a slight  re- 
duction of  the  duty,  would  bring  foreign  bar-iron  into  our  markets  in 
large  quantities. 

We  need  not  multiply  these  illustrations.  What  has  been  shown  of 
the  labor  cost  of  pig-iron  and  bar-iron  might  be  shown  substantially  of 
all  other  iron  and  steel  products.  Labor  constitutes  the  principal  ele- 
ment in  the  cost  of  these  products.  Wages  are  higher,  very  much  high- 
er, in  this  country  than  in  competing  European  countries,  and  hence 
not  a tariff  for  revenue  but  a tariff  for  protection  is  needed  to  enable 
our  manufacturers  to  pay  these  higher  wages.  We  regard  it  as  wholly 
unnecessary  to  present  statistics  showing  the  difference  between  the 
wages  paid  in  this  country  and  in  European  countries.  That  the  gulf 
between  the  labor  systems  of  this  country  and  Europe  is  very  wide  re- 
quires no  demonstration  at  this  late  day.  If  our  present  protective 
tariff  should  be  reduced  one  of  two  possible  results  would  certainly  hap- 
pen : either  the  wages  of  American  workingrueu  would  also  have  to  be 
reduced  or  our  markets  would  become  the  prey  of  foreign  manufactur- 
ers. This  proposition  is  so  self-evident  that  we  wonder  that  any  advo- 
cate of  lower  duties  should  affect  to  iguore.it. 

We  respectfully  submit,  however,  that  the  cost  of  production  is  not 
the  only  subject  that  deserves  consideration  in  the  framing  of  a tariff 
law.  Our  manufacturers  should  be  protected  against  the  possible  un- 


360  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


loading  on  onr  markets,  at  a loss,  of  the  surplus  products  of  other  coutn 
tries  which  cannot  be  sold  at  a profit.  They  should  be  protected  against 
the  low  ocean  freights  on  European  commodities  which  usually  prevail* 
and  which  are  always  much  lower  than  our  own  railroad  freights,  low 
as  the  latter  now  are.  The  difference  in  the  cost  of  transporting  manu- 
factured products  from  our  own  manufacturing  centers  to  points  of  dis- 
tribution or  consumption  on  or  near  the  sea  coast  or  in  the  Gulf  States, 
and  the  cost  of  transporting  the  same  articles  by  water  from  Europe  to 
the  same  markets  is  invariably  in  favor  of  the  foreign  manufacturer. 
Then,  again,  our  manufacturers  are  required  to  pay  higher  rates  of  in- 
terest than  their  European  competitors  for  the  money  that  they  may 
find  it  necessary  to  borrow  in  the  ordinary  conduct  of  their  business  or 
to  carry  them  through  periods  of  depression.  They  require  higher 
profits,  too,  than  the  people  of  European  countries.  Owing  to  our 
higher  wages  and  the  higher  cost  of  all  our  building  materials  much 
more  capital  is  needed  to  establish  a manufacturing  enterprise  in  this 
country  than  in  Europe.  It  may  safely  be  assumed,  for  instance,  that 
a blast  furnace  of  given  capacity  wThich  would  cost  $100,000  in  Europe 
would  cost  $200,000  in  our  own  country.  To  yield  the  same  interest  on 
the  capital  invested,  it  will  readily  be  seen  that,  if  the  two  furnaces  pro- 
duce precisely  the  same  quantity  of  pig-iron  annually,  a profit  of  $1  per 
ton  in  Europe  would  call  for  a larger  profit  in  this  country.  Nor  should 
it  be  forgotten  that  the  profits  of  manufacturing  in  this  country  are 
nearly  always  invested  in  new  manufacturing  enterprises,  which  employ 
additional  labor. 

Still  another  subject  deserving  of  serious  consideration  in  the  framing 
of  a tariff  law  is  the  depreciation  in  the  value  of  the  plants  of  manufact- 
uring establishments.  Improvements  in  processes  are  constantly  tak- 
ing place,  many  of  which  require  the  complete  substitution  of  new  ma- 
chinery for  old ; even  improved  machinery  wears  out  and  must  be  re- 
placed. The  capital  that  is  invested  in  a plant  that  must  be  in  large 
part  renewed  or  give  way  wholly  to  a more  modern  process  of  manu- 
facture would  be  lost  if  provision  were  not  made  in  a surplus  fund  for 
this  class  of  contingencies,  which  fund  must  be  supplied  from  profits 
that  are  independent  of  all  considerations  of  cost  of  production.  If 
our  manufacturers  are  to  keep  abreast  of  the  times,  and  particularly 
if  they  are  to  be  prepared  to  order  new  machinery  when  the  old  wears 
out,  they  must  realize  profits  that  will  allow  for  the  depreciation  in 
their  plants ; otherwise  their  enterprises  perish. 

THE  FRUITS  OF  PROTECTION. 

The  statesmen  of  this  country  cannot  afford  to  misunderstand  the 
elements  of  our  national  prosperity.  Chief  among  these  is  our  protect- 
ive policy.  Protection  has  done  a great  work  for  the  people  of  this 
country  during  the  past  twenty-five  years,  and  we  are  glad  to  be  able 
to  say  that  this  fact  is  now  generally  recognized  and  appreciated, 
even  by  our  industrial  rivals  in  other  countries.  It  is  admitted  by  all 
except  mere  theorists  that  protection  aids  in  the  development  of  all  the 
resources  of  the  country;  that  it  stimulates  the  investment  of  capital; 
that  it  gives  steady  employment  to  our  own  people;  that  it  cheapens 
the  cost  of  manufactured  products  while  enhancing  the  wages  of  labor; 
that  it  cheapens  the  cost  of  transportation ; that  it  furnishes  a home 
market,  and  therefore  a sure  market,  for  much  the  larger  part  of  our 
agricultural  products;  and,  finally,  that  it  keeps  at  home  and  in  circu- 
lation large  sums  of  money  that  would  otherwise  be  sent  abroad.  This 
is  what  protection  for  the  sake  of  protection  does  for  us  directly ; iuci- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


361 


dentally  it  furnishes  revenue  to  the  Government  through  the  duties  col- 
lected on  foreign  commodities.  A tariff  for  revenue  only  might  furnish 
the  same  amount  of  revenue,  but  it  would  not  insure  steady  employ- 
ment to  the  people  nor  produce  any  of  the  other  benefits  which  protec- 
tion brings.  The  tariffs  of  1840  and  1857  were  purely  revenue  tariff's. 
While  they  were  in  operation  no  domestic  industry  prospered  as  it  has 
since  prospered  under  our  protective  policy.  But  for  the  Irish  famine, 
the  discovery  of  gold  in  California,  and  the  Crimean  war  the  fifteen 
years  during  which  these  tariffs  were  in  operation  would  have  been 
years  of  much  greater  industrial  distress  in  our  country  than  they  were. 
That  period  in  our  history  ended  with  the  inability  of  the  Government 
to  pay  its  ordinary  expenses;  it  was  forced  to  become  a borrower  at 
usurious  rates  of  interest.  The  country  was  then  at  peace.  Under  the 
Morrill  protective  tariff  and  its  various  supplements  down  to  the  pres- 
ent time  the  country’s  industrial  life  has  not  only  been  remarkably 
quickened,  but  the  Government  revenue  from  duties  on  imports  has 
greatly  increased.  Never  since  the  world  began  have  the  industries  of 
any  country  been  so  wonderfully  developed  in  a brief  time  as  the  indus- 
tries of  this  country  have  been  during  the  quarter  of  a century  which 
has  elapsed  since  the  passage  of  the  Morrill  tariff  in  1861. 

Nevertheless  the  assertion  is  sometimes  made  that  a protective  tariff 
is  a tax  on  consumers  because  it  increases  the  cost  of  articles  the  man- 
ufacture of  which  is  protected  against  injurious  foreign  competition. 
Those  who  make  this  assertion  ignore  the  benefits  of  protection  to  which 
we  have  alluded,  and  they  ignore  also  the  price  lists  and  market  quota- 
tions in  recent  years,  when  the  inflation  of  values  caused  by  the  expan- 
sion of  the  currency  as  an  incident  of  our  civil  war  had  passed  away. 
The  following  table  will  show  that  protection,  instead  of  being  a tax  on 
consumers,  has  cheapened  the  price  to  them  of  leading  manufactured 
articles  of  iron  and  steel  since  the  break  in  1873  of  the  inflated  prices 
which  the  financial  legislation  of  the  war  period  had  created.  The 
prices  we  give  embrace  the  revenue  tariff  period  already  alluded  to  and 
the  protective  tariff  period  which  was  ushered  in  by  the  Morrill  tariff 
of  1861.  These  prices  are  yearly  averages  for  No.  1 anthracite  foundry 
pig  iron,  best  refined  bar  iron,  and  iron  rails,  all  per  gross  ton,  at  Phila- 
delphia; nails,  per  keg,  wholesale,  at  Philadelphia;  and  steel  rails,  per 
gross  ton  at  Pennsylvania  mills : 


Years. 


3840 

1847 

1848 
3849 
185U 

1851 

1852 

1853 

1854 

1855 

1856 

1857 

1858 

1859 

1860 


m 

30# 

26# 

22f 

20$ 

215 

22f 

m 

36# 

m 

27* 

26# 

22# 

23# 

22# 


Average 


26# 


Revenue  prices. 

Protective  prices. 

Bar  iron. 

Iron  rails. 

Cut  nails. 

Years. 

Pig  iron. 

Bar  iron. 

Steel  rails. 

Cut  nails. 

■ 

$91  66 

1874  

$30# 

$67  95 

$94# 

$3  99 

86  04 

$69 

$4  46 

1875  

25# 

60  85 

68# 

3 42 

79  33 

62# 

4 30 

1876  

22# 

52  08 

59# 

2 98 

67  50 

53# 

4 00 

1877  

18# 

45  55 

45# 

2 57 

59  54 

47#* 

3 65 

1878  

17# 

44  24 

42# 

2 31 

54  66 

45# 

3 30 

1879  

21# 

51  85 

48# 

2 69 

58  79 

48# 

3 08 

1880  

28# 

60  38 

67# 

3 68 

83  50 

77# 

4 50 

1881 

25# 

58  05 

61# 

3 09 

91  33 

80# 

4 60 

1882  

25# 

61  41 

48# 

3 47 

74  58 

62# 

4 10 

1883  

22# 

50  30 

37# 

3 06 

73  75 

64# 

3 94 

1884  : 

19# 

44  05 

30! 

2 39 

71  04 
62  29 
60  00 
58  75 

64# 

50 

49# 

48 

3 72 
3 50 
3 96 
3 13 

1885  (9  months) 

17# 

39  37 

27# 

2 25 

71  52 

58# 

3 87 

Average 

23 

53  00 

52# 

2 99 

36'2 


REPORT  OP  THE  SECRETARY  OE  THE  TREASURY. 


These  figures  show  that  pig  iron,  bar  iron,  and  nails  have  been  cheaper 
under  protection  than  under  a revenue  policy,  and  that  steel  rails  have 
been  sold  under  protection  at  much  cheaper  prices  than  iron  rails  were 
sold  under  a revenue  tariff.  Yet  we  do  not  contend  for  cheapness  as 
the  most  desirable  result  of  the  protective  policy.  Steady  employment 
of  the  people,  good  wages,  general  prosperity,  and  the  ability  to  con- 
sume the  products  of  industry  are  of  far  more  importance. 

The  charge  has  also  been  made  that  protection  is  especially  a tax 
upon  the  farmers  because  by  increasing  the  cost  of  railroad  materials 
it  increases  the  cost  of  transporting  agricultural  products  to  market. 
That  this  charge  is  also  made  without  reference  to  the  facts  is  shown  in 
the  xjrices  of  steel  rails  already  given  and  by  the  following  table  of 
average  freight  charges  per  bushel  for  the  transportation  of  wheat,  a 
representative  product,  from  Chicago  to  New  York,  from  1868  to  1884. 
This  table  was  compiled  by  the  Hon.  Joseph  Nimmo,  jr.,  late  Chief  of  the 
Bureau  of  Statistics : 


Tears. 

By  lake  and  ! 
canal.  j 

By  lake  and 
rail. 

By  all  rail. 

1868 

Cents. 

24.54 

Cents. 

29.0 

Cents. 

42.6 

1869 

23. 12 

25.0 

35.1 

1870 

17. 10 

22.0 

33.3 

1871  . 

20.  24 

25.0 

31.0 

1872 

24.  50 

28.0 

33.5 

1873 

19.19 

26.9 

33.2 

1874 

14.10 

16.9 

28.7 

1875 

11.43 

14.6 

24.1 

1876 

9.  58 

11.8 

16.5 

Years. 

By  lake  and 
canal. 

By  lake  and 
rail. 

By  all  rail. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

1877 

11.21 

15.8 

20.3 

1878 

9. 15 

11.4 

17.7 

1879 

11.60 

13.  3 

17.3 

1880 

| 12.27 

15.  7 

?9.  7 

1881 

8. 19 

10.4 

14.4 

1882 

7. 89 

10.9 

14.6 

1883  

8.  40 

11.5 

i 16.5 

1884,  January  to  September. 
1885*  

6.  60 

9.  75 

13.0 

* Quotations  are  wanting. 


It  is  shown  by  this  table  that  since  1868,  when  the  statistics  com- 
mence, the  freight  on  wheat  from  Chicago  to  New  York  has  steadily 
and  rapidly  declined.  The  railroad  companies  have  largely  been  ena- 
bled to  reduce  their  rates  of  freight  because  protection,  by  encouraging 
domestic  competition  in  the  manufacture  of  steel  rails,  and  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  iron  and  other  articles  entering  into  the  construction  of  cars 
and  locomotives,  has  cheapened  the  cost  of  building  and  equipping 
railroads ; and  because  the  use  of  cheap  steel  rails,  which  protection 
alone  had  made  possible,  has  largely  increased  the  carrying  capacity  of 
the  railroads  without  correspondingly  adding  to  their  operating  ex- 
penses. The  competition  of  the  railroads  compelled  a reduction  of 
freight  rates  by  lake  and  canal.  Protection,  therefore,  has  not  hindered 
but  has  greatly  helped  the  farmers  to  send  their  products  to  market. 

SHALL  THE  TARIFF  OF  1883  BE  REVISED? 

We  now  come  to  consider  the  practical  question  involved  in  the  sug- 
gestion from  unofficial  sources  that  the  present  tariff  requires  general 
revision.  If  our  protective  policy  has  been  productive  of  only  bene- 
ficial results  to  all  the  people  of  our  country,  and  if  these  results  are 
generally  conceded,  why  should  any  reduction  of  duties  be  proposed  in 
any  quarter?  First,  because  it  is  alleged  that  many  duties  in.  the  pres- 
ent tariff  are  excessive  and  therefore  burdensome;  and,  second,  because 
it  is  alleged  that  the  tariff  as  a whole  is  productive  of  too  much  reve- 
nue, and  that  the  surplus  revenue  should  be  reduced  in  the  interest  of 
good  government,  as  well  as  to  relieve  the  people  of  unnecessary  taxa* 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  363 

tiou.  These  reasons  for  precipitating  another  tariff  agitation  upon  the 
country  will  be  briefly  examined. 

We  know  of  few  duties  in  our  present  tariff  that  are  higher  than  are 
needed  for  the  protection  of  domestic  industries,  while,  as  we  have 
shown,  there  are  several  rates  of  duty  in  the  metal  schedule  that  are 
wholly  inadequate  for  the  protection  of  our  iron  and  steel  industries  and 
for  tire  protection  of  the  Government  revenue.  It  is  noticeable  and 
significant  that  such  demand  as  now  exists  for  another  revision  of  the 
tariff  comes  mainly  from  those  who  desire  a still  further  reduction  of 
duties  than  was  accomplished  in  1883,  and  who  express  no  anxiety 
whatever  concerning  an  increase  of  duties  which  would  tend  to  restrict 
the  importation  of  foreign  goods. 

No  existing  duty  which  has  built  up  a useful  American  industry  is  too 
high.  If  a protective  duty  has  enlisted  capital,  employed  labor,  pro- 
moted competition,  reduced  prices,  contributed  to  our  industrial  inde- 
pendence, and  restricted  the  drain  of  the  precious  metals  to  Europe  to 
pay  for  the  products  of  foreign  capital  and  labor  it  should  not  be  re- 
pealed or  reduced  the  moment  it  has  accomplished  these  beneficent 
results.  So  long  as  it  remains  on  the  statute-book  it  can  harm  no 
American  interest  j the  competition  which  it  has  created  will  guard  con- 
sumers against  unreasonable  prices ; but  repeal  or  reduce  it  and  the  in- 
dustry which  it  lias  established  is  at  once  placed  in  jeopardy,  the  capi- 
tal invested  in  it  loses  its  sense  of  security,  activity  is  succeeded  by 
lethargy,  and  consumers  are  soon  confronted  with  advancing  prices  the 
benefit  of  which  the  foreigner  receives,  Our  experience  under  the  com- 
promise tariff  of  1833  and  the  revenue  tariffs  of  1846  and  1857  proves 
the  correctness  of  these  statements.  The  compromise  tariff  of  1833, 
which  succeeded  the  protective  tariffs  of  1824  and  1828,  kept  all  the 
industries  of  the  country  in  a dying  condition  for  many  years  before  its 
repeal ; the  tariffs  of  1846  and  1857  conspicuously  retarded  the  devel- 
opment of  our  iron  industry.  In  a few  years  after  the  passage  of  the 
tariff  of  1846  our  iron  rail  industry,  which  had  been  literally  brought 
into  existence  by  the  protective  tariff  of  1842,  was  dead.  The  with- 
drawal of  protection  after  it  has  once  been  granted  has  frequently  in- 
jured the  industries  of  this  country  fully  as  much  as  the  failure  to  grant 
it  when  needed. 

Why  should  a duty  which  has  rendered  the  country  a real  service  be 
repealed  or  reduced  unless  it  is  intended  that  the  foreign  manufacturer 
shall  thereby  secure  more  ready  access  to  our  markets'?  If  experience 
shows  that  it  has  harmed  no  person  but  this  foreign  manufacturer,  why 
should  any  loyal  American  agree  to  surrender  one  hair’s  breadth  of  its 
patriotic  provisions  ? If  the  duty  on  pig  iron,  for  instance,  has  secured 
a home  supply  of  every  quality  needed,  and  at  lower  prices  than  were 
ever  known  under  a revenue  tariff,  why  should  the  duty  now  be  reduced 
when  one  of  the  certain  effects  would  be  to  stop  many  American  fur- 
naces ? If  the  duty  on  steel  rails  has  reduced  their  price  to  the  owners 
of  American  railroads  below  the  lowest  price  they  ever  paid  for  inferior 
iron  rails,  why  should  it  now  be  reduced,  when  the  only  effect  would  be 
to  enable  the  foreign  manufacturer  of  steel  rails  to  re-enter  the  Ameri- 
can market,  from  which  our  low  prices  have  but  recently  driven  him? 
What  obligation  rests  on  the  people  on  the  Government  of  this  country 
to  foster  the  manufactures  of  other  countries  and  neglect  their  own  ? 

But  we  are  told  that  present  duties  yield  too  much  revenue,  and  that 
they  should  be  reduced  20  per  cent.,  or  more,  for  this  reason  alone,  if 
for  no  other.  Adopt  the  policy  of  a sweeping  reduction  for  the  reason 
stated,  and  there  would  follow  a certain  increase  of  importations,  with 
the  possible  absurd  consequence  of  an  increase,  instead  of  a decrease,  of 


364  REPORT  or  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


revenue.  Low  duties  would  encourage  importations  for  a time,  until  our 
people,  through  lack  of  profitable  employment,  would  be  unable  to  buy 
the  products  of  either  foreign  or  domestic  industry.  Then  the  revenue 
would  surely  decline,  as  it  did  under  the  revenue  tariff  of  1857.  We 
can,  in  this  way,  reach  a reduction  of  the  revenue  through  the  impov- 
erishment of  the  people.  This  cannot  be  what  the  advocates  of  another 
revision  of  the  tariff  desire.  A more  humane  and  patriotic  way  to  re- 
duce the  revenue  would  be  to  increase  the  duties,  arid  thus  check  im- 
portations. 

Those  who  have  the  most  to  say  about  our  surplus  revenue  have  ap- 
parently failed  to  notice  the  fact  that  the  receipts  of  the  Government 
from  both  customs  duties  and  internal  taxes  have  greatly  declined 
within  the  last  two  years.  We  have  not  before  us  all  the  statistics 
that  we  would  be  glad  to  present  in  this  connection,  but  we  give  the 
following  statement  of  the  receipts  and  expenditures  of  the  Treasury 
for  the  two  fiscal  years  which  ended  on  the  30th  of  June  last : 


1885. 

1884. 

RECEIPTS. 

Customs 

$181,471,339 
112,  498,  725 
29,  720,  042 

$195,067,490 
121,  586,  073 
31,866,  308 

Internal  revenue _ _ _ _ 

Miscellaneous 

Total 

• 323,  690,  706 

348,  519,  871 

EXPENDITURES. 

Ordinary 

152,  738,  412 
56, 102,  267 
51,  386,  256 

134, 118,  638 

54,  429,  228 

55,  578,  378 

Pensions 

Interest 

Totals 

260,  226,  935 

244, 126,  244 

This  statement  shows  that  the  receipts  declined  $24,829,105  in  the 
last  year,  while  the  expenditures  increased  $16,100,691  in  the  same 
year,  making  a total  loss  to  the  Treasury  of  nearly  $41,000,000  in  the 
last  year  as  compared  with  its  predecessor,  tn  the  first  of  the  two 
fiscal  years  mentioned  the  surplus  of  receipts  over  expenditures  was 
$104,393,627,  but  in  the  last  year  it  was  only  $63,463,771.  That  the  re- 
ceipts will  be  still  less  in  the  present  fiscal  year,  which  commenced  on 
the  1st  of  July  last,  than  in  the  preceding  fiscal  year  is  rendered  certain 
by  the  decline  which  has  already  taken  place,  and  that  the  surplus  rev- 
enue will  also  be  less  is  equally  certain.  It  would  seem  that  there  is 
not  likely  to  be  very  much  surplus  to  worry  about  in  the  near  future. 

But,  even  if  there  should  appear  to  be  a reasonable  prospect  that  the 
present  tariff  and  the  present  internal  revenue  laws  will  yield  a surplus 
revenue  of  several  millions  from  year  to  year  if  they  are  not  amended, 
is  there  no  better  way  of  reducing  this  surplus  than  by  making  a present 
of  it  to  foreign  manufacturers  by  a reduction  of  duties  ? Gould  not  our 
own  people  be  more  wisely  and  patriotically  relieved  of  that  portion  of 
the  internal  taxes  which  is  derived  from  tobacco,  and  in  this  way  relieve 
the  Treasury  of  its  surplus  revenue?  But,  better  still,  why  not  use  the 
surplus  in  improving  our  sea-coast  defenses,  in  building  the  navy  that 
is  so  sorely  needed,  in  making  guns  and  armor-plate  that  will  be  in  ac- 
cord with  the  military  progress  of  the  times,  and  in  extending  Govern- 
ment aid  in  the  establishment  of  steampship  lines  which  would  carry 
the  United  States  mail  to  foreign  countries,  and  carry  the  products  of 
Ameiican  industry  to  foreign  markets  from  which  we  are  now  debarred 
by  the  more  vigorous  policy  of  foreign  governments?  To  give  our  sur- 
plus reveuue  to  foreigners  under  any  circumstances,  but  especially 
when  there  is  so  much  to  be  done  to  strengthen  our  defenses  against 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


365 


possible  foreign  enemies,  ancl  to  increase  our  commerce  with  foreign 
countries,  is  madness. 


Ve  have  thus,  Mr.  Secretary,  frankly  expressed  our  views  on  all  the 
subjects  referred  to  in  your  circular  letter.  We  have  also  freely  ex- 
pressed our  opinion  concerning  the  question  of  a revision  of  tbe  tariff 
which  is  likely  to  come  before  Congress.  We  have  considered  these 
subjects  as  business  men  who  have  to  deal  with  facts  and  not  with 
theories.  WTe  do  not  approve  of  the  unofficial  suggestion  that  there 
should  be  a general  revision  of  the  tariff.  Our  present  tariff  is  a new 
tariff,  less  than  three  years  old,  and  we  know  of  no  good  reason  why  it 
should  be  revised,  as  is  proposed,  from  beginning  to  end.  That  some 
of  its  provisions  are  injurious  to  our  own  people,  and  should  be  corrected 
so  as  to  secure  needed  protection,  we  have  pointed  out,  but  so  great  is 
the  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  a general  revision  that  we  never- 
theless strongly  object  to  this  revision  being  undertaken  at  this  time. 
We  do  not  lack  faith  in  the  intelligence  or  the  patriotism  of  Congress, 
but  we  know  from  sore  experience  how  impossible  it  is  for  Congress, 
with  many  important  questions  pressing  for  its  consideration,  to  give 
to  the  details  of  a tariff  bill  the  time  and  attention  that  are  absolutely 
necessary  if  great  interests  are  not  to  be  overlooked  and  great  errors 
committed.  We  especially  deprecate  a reopening  of  the  tariff  question 
at  the  present  time,  when  the  industries  of  the  country  are  beginning 
to  revive  from  a protracted  period  of  depression,  brought  about  by 
world-wide  causes  and  common  to  all  manufacturing  countries.  Agita 
tiou  of  the  tariff  question  when  accompanied  by  the  threat  of  a reduc- 
tion of  duties  is  always  a cause  of  business  disturbance,  but  it  is  par- 
ticularly so  at  a time  like  this,  when  employers  and  their  workmen  have 
just  passed  through  a most  trying  ordeal,  and  are  beginning  to  see  the 
substantial  evidences  of  that  improvement  which  they  have  long  hoped 
for.  To  be  confronted  with  the  ghost  of  tariff  revision  and  reduction 
at  such  a time  is  of  itself  a most  unwelcome  experience,  but  if  for  that 
ghost  there  shall  be  substituted  the  bones  and  flesh  of  a tariff  bill  pro- 
posing a general  revision  and  reduction  of  duties,  we  hazard  nothing 
in  predicting  that  the  effect  on  the  business  of  the  country  will  be 
simply  disastrous.  We  pray,  therefore,  Mr.  Secretary,  in  behalf  of  the 
great  interests  we  represent,  that  such  recommendations  as  you  may 
make  concerning  the  tariff  will  be  practically  limited  to  suggestions 
intended  to  secure  such  additional  legislation  as  will  make  possible  a 
more  thorough  enforcement  of  its  existing  provisions.  In  any  sugges- 
tions of  this  character  which  you  may  make  you  will  certainly  have  our 
hearty  sympathy. 

We  are,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 


CONCLUSION. 


B.  F.  Jones,  President. 

Joseph  Wharton,  1 

Samuel  M.  Felton,  > Vice-Presidents. 

William  Metcalf,  3 

James  M.  Swank,  General  Manager. 

J.  B.  Moorhead, 


VV  . XJ.  KJ.  VJUAij, 

Paris  Haldeman,  j 
Perciyal  Koberts,  3 
George  W.  Cope,  Secretary. 


366  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

CORRESPONDENCE  WITH  THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT. 


[Circular  to  manufacturers.] 


Treasury  Department,  Office  of  the  Secretary, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  July  17,  18.-^. 

Sir  : Investigations  of  the  methods  of  entry  and  appraisement  of  imported  merchan- 
dise have  shown  that  the  tariff  laws  are  largely  evaded  by  undervaluation  wherever 
the  duties  are  levied  ad  valorem.  A remedy  suggested  for  this  evil  is  the  adoption  of 
specific  duties.  With  a view  of  obtaining  information  on  this  subject  which  may  be 
useful  to  Congress  in  fiscal  legislation,  and  as  an  aid  in  the  improvement  of  the  cus- 
toms-revenue system,  it  is  deemed  proper  to  ask  the  advice  of  those  directly  interested 
in  the  various  industrial  arts  of  the  country  which  may  be  affected  by  tariff’ 
legislation,  and  which  suffer  more  or  less  by  reason  of  defective  methods  of  adminis- 
tration. You  are,  therefore,  requested  to  give  your  views  as  to  the  feasibility  of 
simplifying  the  tariff  and  making  the  duty  specific,  so  far  as  applicable  to  imported 
articles,  such  as  are  made  or  produced  in  the  United  States,  in  which  you  are  inter- 
ested, or  with  which  you  are  familiar,  with  as  full  information  on  the  subject  as  you 
may  be  pleased  to  submit. 

It  is  desirable  that,  in  additiou  to  a schedule  showing  the  rates  of  specific  duty 
which  in  your  opinion  should  be  levied  upon  the  various  kinds  and  qualities  of  mer- 
chandise embraced  therein,  the  information  furnished  may  cover  the  following 
points : 

(1)  Commercial  or  technical  designation  of  the  article,  with  sample  or  samples. 

(2)  Cost  of  production  of  a given  unit  of  quantity,  by  weight  or  measure,  with  the 
following  details  as  to  each  kind  or  quality  of  article,  viz  : (a)  Cost  of  materials, 
character  of  same  (as,  for  example^  if  wool,  the  kind  of  wool),  whether  of  foreign  or 
domestic  origin.  If  foreign,  what  part  of  the  value  represents  duties  paid  thereon. 

( b ) Cost  of  labor  in  detail,  giving  each  item  specifically,  and  the  rates  of  wages  paid. 

(c)  Operating  expenses,  and  how  distributed.  ( d ) Interest,  (e)  Other  elements  of 
cost  not  covered  by  the  above. 

(3)  Description  of  buildings  and  machinery,  and  amount  of  capital  invested  in 
each. 


(4)  If  the  foreign  article  of  similar  kind  and  quality  is  subject  to  ad  valorem  duty, 
state  as  nearly  as  practicable  the  specific  equivalent  per  a given  unit  of  w eight  or 
measure. 

(5)  Mention  any  exceptional  element  of  advantage  or  disadvantage  in  manufactur- 
ing, such  as  location  of  the  factory  with  reference  to  market  or  means  of  transporta- 
tion, accessibility  of  supplies,  nature  of  the  power  or  kind  of  machinery  used,  character 
of  labor  employed,  rates  of  wages  paid,  amount  of  taxes,  or  exemption  from  taxation, 
&c. 


You  are  also  requested  to  forward  such  information  as  you  may  be  able  to  submit 
showing  the  relative  cost  of  manufacture  of  the  same  article  in  the  United  States  and 
in  Europe,  particularly  with  regard  to  the  cost  of  labor,  as  affected  by  the  rate  of 
wages  paid  in  the  different  countries.  State  how  much  the  total  cost  of  a given  unit 
of  production  is  increased  in  the  United  States  over  European  countries  by  reasou  of 
the  difference  in  wages  paid  and  the  rate  of  interest  on  capital  employed.  State 
also  to  what  extent,  within  your  knowledge  of  the  special  trade  with  which  your 
business  is  connected,  the  present  laws  imposing  taxes  on  the  imported  article  have 
been  evaded  and  how  the  same  can  be  corrected,  whether  by  specific  duties  or  other- 
wise, and  to  what  extent  the  home  industry  with  which  you  are  connected  lias  suffered 
from  this  cause.  It  is  not  intended  that  your  reply  shall  be  confined  to  the  form  or 
scope  of  the  inquiries  above  suggested,  but  you  are  invited  to  give  the  fullest  expres- 
sion of  your  views  on  the  general  subject  indicated,  in  such  manner  and  form  as  you 
may  deem  best. 

Publicity  will  not  be  given  to  names,  location,  or  facts  relating  to  the  business  of 
'individuals  or  corporations.  These  will  be  treated  as  private,  if  so  desired.  Please 
reply  at  your  earliest  convenience. 

Very  respectfullv, 

DANIEL  MANNING, 

Secretary , 


Office  of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association, 

No.  261  South  Fourth  street , Philadelphia,  July  18,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington,  D.  C.  : 

Sir  : I am  in  receipt  of  your  circular  letter  of  Ihe  17th  iustant  in  relation  to  proposed 
changes  in  the  tariff  laws.  The  subjects  presented  for  consideration  cover  a wide  field 
of  inquiry  and  investigation,  and  a thorough  study  of  them  would  occupy  several 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


367 


weeks  and  possibly  months  of  time.  I am,  however,  willing  to  begin  their  considera- 
tion at  once,  but  before  doing  this  I will  thank  you  to  advise  me  whether  you  expect 
this  office  lo  respond  for  the  whole  iron  and  steel  industries  of  the  country,  or  whether 
you  expect  us  to  give  only  our  own  views  as  an  association,  accompanied  by  such 
general  information  as  may  be  pertinent  to  the  scope  of  the  circular.  This  associa- 
tion embraces  a large  membership  of  iron  and  steel  manufacturers.  If  desiredwe 
could  undertake  the  collection  of  information  from  representative  manufacturers  in 
every  part  of  the  country.  If  we  should  agree  to  do  this,  however,  we  would  be  em- 
barrassed, and  the  work  in  hand  would  be  greatly  complica’ed  if  the  Department 
should  at  the  same  time  request  replies  from  individual  manufacturers.  Such  replies 
as  we  might  receive  we  could  digest,  and  the  information  obtained  could  be  systema- 
tized and  tabulated.  I do  not,  however,  suggest  that  this  is  the  best  method  of 
obtaining  the  information  you  desire.  My  only  object  in  calling  attention  to  the 
matter  is  that  we  may  know  bow  yon  wish  us  to  proceed  in  the  premises. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

JAMES  M.  SWANK, 

General  Manager. 


Treasury  Department,  Office  of  the  Secretary, 

Washington , D.  C.,  July  21,  1885. 

James  M.  Swank,  Esq., 

General  Manager  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association,  Philadelphia  : 

Sir  : I have  received  your  letter  of  the  18th  instant,  in  reference  to  my  circular 
asking  information  concerning  manufactures  in  which  your  association  is  interested. 
I have  also  received  a communication  from  Mr.  Joseph  Wharton,  vice-president  of 
your  association,  on  the  same  subject. 

You  indicate  your  willingness  to  collect  information  from  representative  manufact- 
urers of  iron  and  steel  products,  and  tabulate  the  same  for  the  use  of  this  Depart- 
ment. You  state,  however,  that  you  would  be  embarrassed  if  the  Department  should 
at  the  same  time  request  replies  from  individual  manufacturers,  and  desire  to  know 
before  you  commence  the  collection  of  statistics  what  action  the  Department  will 
take  in  this  regard. 

In  reply  I beg  to  say  that  the  circular  letter  referred  to  has  already  been  sent  to  a 
number  of  individual  firms  and  corporations  engaged  in  the  iron  and  steel  industries, 
and  will  probably  go  to  others,  as  I desire  to  obtain  the  fullest  information  from  all 
possible  sources. 

I think  you  are  in  error  in  the  supposition  that  this  course  will  cause  you  embarrass- 
ment in  collecting  and  collating  information  in  the  way  you  propose.  The  great 
value  of  information  thus  collected,  digested,  and  tabulated  under  your  direction  is 
fully  appreciated,  and  I shall  be  greatly  obliged  for  any  suggestions  which  your 
thorough  familiarity  with  the  subject  and  great  experience  in  these  matters  may 
dictate. 

I trust,  therefore,  you  will  proceed  with  the  work  in  the  manner  proposed  by  you, 
aud  favor  the  Department  with  the  results  as  soon  as  practicable. 

Very  respectfully, 


D.  MANNING, 

Secretary. 


Office  of  The  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association, 

No.  261  South  Fourth  street,  Philadelphia,  July‘S,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington,  I).  C.  : 

Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  21st  instant  in  relation  to  the  collection  of  information  in 
reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  the  17tli  instant,  has  been  received,  and  shall  have 
careful  consideration.  In  a few  days  I will  be  able  to  advise  you  of  the  extent  to 
which  our  investigation  of  the  subjects  referred  to  in  the  circular  letter  can  be 
carried. 

Very  respectfully,  vours, 

JAMES  M.  SWANK, 

General  Manager. 


Office  of  The  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association, 

No.  261  South  Fourth  street,  Philadelphia,  July  25,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  At  a conference  ibis  m<  ruing  with  some  of  our  friends,  the  second  point  of 
your  circular  letter  in  relation  to  duties  on  foreign  goods  was  under  consideration. 


368  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


We  all  agreed  that  the  cost  of  production  to-day  or  at  any  time  during  the  present 
year  is  entirely  too  low  to  he  made  the  basis  of  legislation.  Labor  is  paid  less  than 
it  should  receive,  and  capital  as  a rule  is  not  adequately  rewarded.  It  is  desirable 
that  the  wages  of  labor  should  be  increased  as  soon  as  possible.  I respectfully  sug- 
gest that  all  inquiries  in  relation  to  cost  of  production  should  be  made  to  cover  the 
average  of  the  last  three  years,  1882,  1883,  and  1884.  The  first  year  mentioned  was  a 
very  prosperous  year  for  all  American  industries ; the  next  year  was  very  much  less 
prosperous;  and  1884  was  in  many  respects  a disastrous  year.  It  is  our  candid  opin- 
ion that  an  average  of  the  cost  of  production  for  the  three  years  mentioned,  would 
furnish  the  only  true  basis  for  legislation.  May  I ask  whether  you  would  approve  of 
this  office  making  inquiries  concerning  the  three  years  mentioned?  To  ask  for  pres- 
ent cost  as  a basis  of  legislation  would  be  seriously  objected  to. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

JAMES  M.  SWANK, 

General  Manager. 


Treasury  Department,  Office  of  the  Secretary, 

Washington , D.  C.,  August  3,  18'5. 

James  M.  Swank,  Esq., 

General  Manager  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association,  Philadelphia  : 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  25th  ultimo,  in  which  you  suggest  that  inquiries 
in  regard  to  the  cost  of  production  of  iron  and  steel  should  be  made  to  cover  the 
average  of  three  years  (1882,  1883,  and  1884),  I have  to  state  that  your  suggestion 
meets  the  cordial  approval  of  the  Department. 

Very  respectfully, 

C.  S.  FAIRCHILD, 

Assistant  Sewetary. 


Office  of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association, 

No.  261  South  Fourth  street,  Philadelphia,  August  12,  1885. 

Hon.  C.  S.  Fairchild, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Your  letter,  dated  about  August  1,  in  reference  to  the  substitution  of 
1882,  1883,  and  1884  for  the  present  time  in  the  collection  of  the  statistics  of  the  cost 
of  production  of  manufactured  products  in  our  country,  was  duly  received  at  our 
office  and  forwarded  to  me  at  Pittsburgh,  where  I then  was.  I had  gone  to  Pitts- 
burgh partly  to  excite  interest  in  the  Secretary’s  circular,  and  your  letter  was  of  much 
service  to  me  in  securing  the  promise  of  co-opemtion  from  leading  Pittsburgh  manu- 
facturers. Returning  trorn  Pittsburgh,  \ placed  your  letter  in  the  hands  of  one  of 
our  prominent  Bessemer  steel  manufacturers,  who  will  to-day  lay  it  before  his  asso- 
ciates in  the  business  at  a meeting  to  be  held  at  Long  Branch.  With  this  explana- 
tion you  will  understand  why  the  receipt  of  your  letter  was  notpromptly  acknowledged 
by  me.  I am  gratified  that  "the  Department  takes  the  same  view  of  the  subject  of  your 
letter  that  is  taken  by  this  association. 

Herewith  I inclose  to  you  copies  ot  a circular  letter  to  all  iron  and  steel  manufact- 
urers, and  of  several  series  of  interrogatories  which  we  are  now  sending  to  them.  I 
also  inclose  you  copies  of  our  Bulletin  of  last  week  and  this  week  containing  refer- 
ences to  the  Secretary’s  circular.  You  will  perceive  from  these  various  publications 
that  this  office  is  doing  all  that  it  can  do  to  secure  the  active  co-operation  of  iron  and 
steel  and  all  other  manufacturers  in  the  important  work  which  the  Department  has 
undertaken.  We  do  not  approve  of  the  project  of  a general  revision  of  the  tariff  at 
this  time,  but  this  matter  being  beyond  our  control  we  believe  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
manufacturers  to  give  to  the  Department  the  information  it  has  requested.  I am 
hopeful  now  that  there  will  be  a general  response  to  the  Department’s  request.  Sev- 
eral newspapers  of  influence  have  copied  approvingly  the  editorial  in  our  Bulletin  of 
August  5. 

In  sending  out  the  interrogatories  from  this  office  it  is  not  our  intention  to  interfere 
in  any  way  with  the  transmission  of  individual  reports  to  the  Department  as  requested 
in  the  Secretary’s  circular.  Our  object  is  solely  to  secure  reports  to  this  office  from 
manufacturers  who  would  not  otherwise  take  the  trouble  to  report  to  the  Depart- 
ing. 

I respectfully  suggest  that  in  any  communications  the  Department  may  have  with 
industrial  organizations  of  the  country  like  our  own  you  might  properly  call  their 
attention  to  the  action  we  have  taken.  We  have  already  sent  copies  of  our  Bulletin 
of  August  5 to  the  officers  of  most  of  these  organizations. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 


JAMES  M.  SWANK, 

General  Manager . 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


369 


CIRCULAR  LETTERS  FROM  THE  AMERICAN  IRON  AND  STEEL  ASSOCIATION. 

Office  of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association, 

No.  261  South  Fourth  street , Philadelphia,  August  10,  1885. 

To  all  Iron  and  Steel  Manufacturers  : 

Gentlemen  : Inclosed  herewith  you  will  find  a copy  of  the  circular  letter  from  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  relation  to  proposed  changes  in  the  tariff  laws;  also  a 
series  of  interrogatories,  prepared  by  this  office,  in  relation  to  the  cost  of  producing 
the  product,  or  products,  of  your  works.  I am  in  receipt  of  a personal  letter  from  the 
Secretary  urging  this  association  to  assist  him  in  obtaining  the  information  called  for 
in  his  circular  letter,  and  the  accompanying  interrogatories  have  been  framed  to 
secure  this  information.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Secretary’s  circular  letter  im- 
plies that  the  information  he  desires  concerning  cost  of  production  shall  relate  to  the 
present  time,  and  that  the  interrogatories  by  this  office  embrace  the  years  1882, 1883, 
and  1884.  I have  the  Secretary’s  express  authority  to  make  this  important  change  in 
the  scope  of  the  investigation  he  has  undertaken. 

In  the  Bulletin  of  this  association  for  August  5 you  will  find  an  editorial  article 
approving  the  Secretary’s  call  for  information,  which  I hoj)e  you  will  read  carefully. 
In  this  article  you  will" see  that  it  is  our  true  policy  to  give  the  information  that  is 
asked  for.  I hope,  therefore,  lhat  you  will  at  once  reply  to  the  interrogatories  con- 
tained in  the  accbmpanying  blank,  and  send  your  reply  to  my  address.  I will  use 
your  answers  only  to  enable  this  office  to  compile  tabulated  statements  for  the  coun- 
try at  large  for  the  use  of  the  Secretary.  We  will  not  print,  nor  in  any  way  disclose 
to  any  person  but  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  replies  you  may  make.  We  will 
tabulate  the  returns  by  States  and  districts,  precisely  as  we  do  in  compiling  the 
ordinary  statistics  of  this  association.  I trust  that  you  will  co-operate  promptly 
with  this  office  in  furnishing  the  Secretary  with  the  information  he  desires.  It  is 
not  desired  nor  proposed  that  any  suggestions  shall  be  made  to  him  by  this  office  con- 
cerning any  changes  in  the  present  rates  of  duties,  except  in  those  cases  where  the 
duties  are  manifestly  too  low,  as  in  the  case  of  tin  plates,  or  where  an  ad  valorem  duty 
should  be  exchanged  for  a specific  duty.  If  you  discover  that  the  blank  or  blanks 
sent  you  are  not  precisely  suited  to  your  works,  the  character  of  the  materials  you 
use,  or  the  kind  of  product  you  make,  please  correct  the  interrogatories  or  supply  the 
omissions.  We  have  given  an  abundance  of  room  between  lines  for  this  purpose. 

Very  respectiully,  yours, 

• JAMES  M.  SWANK, 
Vice-President  and  General  Manager. 


Office  of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association, 

No.  261  South  Fourth  street , Philadelphia,  September  3,  1885. 


To  all  Iron  and  Steel  Manufacturers  : 

Gentlemen  : I respectfully  request  that  your  reply  to  the  interrogatories  we  have 
already  sent  you  concerning  Secretary  Manning’s  circular  be  sent  to  me  as  soon  as 
possible.  Wo  desire  to  make  a summary  during  the  present  month  of  the  replies  sent 
to  us  by  the  manufacturers.  If  it  is  not  convenient  for  you  to  give  exact  figures  of 
cost  of  production  for  1882,  1883,  and  1884  please  make  careful  estimates. 

Allow  me  to  call  your  attention  to  some  observations  in  relation  to  Mr.  Manning’s 
circular,  which  will  be  found  on  the  first  page  of  our  Bulletin  for  the  2d  instant. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 


JAMES  M.  SWANK, 
Vice-President  and  General  Manager. 


ACTION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  IRON  AND  STEEL  ASSOCIATION. 

At  a meeting  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Associa- 
tion, held  at  Philadelphia  on  Wedne  day,  October  14,  for  the  purpose  of  considering 
the  circular  letter  of  Secretary  Manning  in  relation  to  duties  on  imports,  the  following 
resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted: 

(1)  Besolvcd,  That  we  approve  the  action  that  has  been  taken  by  the  officers  of  this 
association  in  requesting,  in  response  to  the  circular  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  information  from  iron  and  si  eel  manufacturers  concerning  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction of  the  various  articles  of  iron  and  steel,  believing  that  such  information  could 
not  fail  to  justify  the  present  duties  on  these  products. 

S.  Ex.  72 24 


370  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  TifE  TREASURY. 


(2)  Resolved,  That  we  regard  the  present  tariff,  which  was  enacted  less  than  three 
years  ago,  after  nearly  two  years  of  Congressional  agitation,  as  being  in  the  main  a 
wise  law,  although  it  contains  some  defects  which  we  would  be  glad  to  see  corrected 
if  this  could  be  done  without  re-opening  the  whole  question  of  tariff  revision. 

(3)  Resolved,  That  we  are  earnestly  opposed  to  any  scheme  of  tariff  revision  which 
contemplates  any  further  changes  in  the  present  tariff  than  the  judicious  substitution 
of  specific  for  ad  valorem  duties  or  the  correction  of  such  manifest  errors  as  the  low 
rate  on  tin  plates — a rate  which  gives  to  England  the  monopoly  of  the  manufacture 
of  this  indispensable  article,  and  permits  no  American  citizen  to  engage  in  its  pro- 
duction. 

(4)  Resolved,  That  it  is  our  sincere  opinion  that  if  a general  revision  of  the  tariff 
should  be  undertaken  at  the  next  session  of  Congress,  the  immediate  effect  would  be 
to  seriously  check  the  welcome  revival  in  business  which  has  recently  commenced  in 
every  part  of  the  country,  and  we  appeal  to  Congress  to  promptly  declare  its  hostility 
to  any  such  project. 

(5)  Resolved , That  wo  appeal  to  the  President  and  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
to  give  assurance  to  the  country  in  the  official  papers  which  they  will  soon  prepare, 
in  anticipation  of  the  meeting  .of  Congress,  and  which  will  be  eagerly  read  by  all  the 
people,  that  the  project  of  another  general  revision  of  the  tariff  at  the  present  time 
does  not  receive  their  official  sanction. 

(6)  Resolved , That  such  information  as  has  been  collected  by  the  American  Iron  and 
Steel  Association  concerning  the  cost  of  production  of  iron  and  steel  shall  be  transmitted 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  as  early  a day  as  possible,  and  that  copies  of  the 
foregoing  resolutions  be  transmitted  to  the  President  and  the  Secretary  immediately. 


Executive  Mansion, 

Washington,  October  19,  1885. 

James  M.  Swank,  Esq., 

Vice-President  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association,  Philadelphia. 


My  Dear  Sir  : The  President  directs  me  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter 
of  the  141  li  instant,  inclosing  resolutions  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  American 
Iron  and  Steel  Association  in  relation  to  duties  on  imports,  and  to  say  that  the  sug- 
gestions contained  therein  will  have  due  consideration. 

Yery  truly  yours, 

DANIEL  S.  LAMONT, 

Private  Secretary. 


LETTERS  FROM  IRON  AND  STEEL  MANUFACTURERS  TO  THE  AMERICAN  IRON  AND 

STEEL  ASSOCIATION. 

South  Mountain  Mining  and  Iron  Company , Pine  Grove  Furnace,  Cumberland  County , Penn- 
sylvania.— Our  business  of  manufacturing  iron  blooms  is  injuriously  affected  by  the  ad 
valorem  rate  of  duty  on  Scotch  open-hearth  steel  blooms.  We  would  recommend  a 
specific  duty  of  $21  per  ton  on  such  steel  blooms. 

McCullough  Iron  Company,  of  Wilmington,  Bel.,  and  of  Cecil  County,  Maryland. — The 
ad  valorem  rate  of  45  per  cent,  on  steel  ingots  and  blooms  should  be  changed  to  1| 
cents  per  pound  specific.  The  ad  valorem  rate  of  30  per  cent,  on  sheet  iron  thinner 
than  No.  29  and  on  taggers  iron  also  affects  us  injuriously.  A specific  duty  of  1.9 
cents  per  pound  should  be  imposed  on  these  thicknesses. 

Bernard  Lauth,  Howard  Iron  Works,  Centre  County,  Pennsylvania. — We  want  a higher 
rate  of  duty  on  charcoal  pig-iron.  We  want  a tariff  that  will  protect. 

William  W.  Wood,  Wood’s  Falls,  Clinton  County,  New  York. — Our  Champlain  ore  blooms 
are  used  for  steel  purposes  and  for  wire  rods.  Add  to  their  price  $10  per  ton  for  roll- 
ing and  compare  with  the  price  of  foreign  iron  wire  rods,  and  it  will  be  seen  that 
foreign  rods  are  much  cheaper.  Since  the  duty  has  been  reduced  on  iron  wire  rods 
my  forge  has  only  been  able  to  work  to  one-third  of  its  capacity. 

William  Mcllvain  Sons,  Reading,  Pa. — We  most  earnestly  take  exception  to  ad 
valorem  duties,  inasmuch  as  they  injuriously  increase  prices  on  a higher  market,  and 
with  equally  bad  effect  tend  to  depress  still  more  a low  market.  We  would  advocate 
in  all  cases  absolute  specific  duties.  In  the  case  of  materials  of  several  grades  or  quali- 
ties, and  subject  to  difference  in  price,  a scale  in  tho  duties  could  be  applied  under  a 
specific  ruling,  avoiding  fluctuations  in  the  market  to  a very  great  extent  and  estab- 
lishing a permanency  in  trade  that  is  desirable  at  all  times. 

Marshall  Bros,  cf  Co.,  Philadelphia. — We  should  have  at  least  1.9  cents  to  2 cents  ^er 
pound  duty  on  tpggers  iron,  The  present  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  per  cent,  is  qo  pro? 


REVISION  OF,  THE  TARIFF. 


371 


tection,  as  there  is  undervaluation  on  all  the  light  sheets.  A higher  duty  is  also  needed 
on  heavier  gauges.  When  sheet  iron  is  sold  here  on  a profitable  basis  tv©  are  affected 
at  once  by  foreign  sheets.  We  need  the  old  duty,  or  the  one  recommended  by  the 
tariff  commission  of  1882,  in  order  to  successfully  compete  with  foreign  manufact- 
urers. 

Everson , Hammond  fy  Orr , Pittsburgh,  Pa. — We  used  to  make  largely  No.  30  trunk 
sheets  when  the  duty  was  If  cents  per  pound;  now,  under  the  ad  valorem  duty  of  30 
per  cent.,  the  trade  is  entirely  gone. 

J.  It.  Bringhurst,  Marshallton,  Del. — Taggers  iron  should  have  a specific  duty  per 
pound  at  least  equal  to  that  imposed  on  No.  28  sheet  iron,  which  is  1.5  ceuts  per 
pound. 

Marshall  Iron  Company,  Newport,  Del. — Our  business  of  manufacturing  sheet  iron  is 
injuriously  affected  by  the  low  ad  valorem  duty  on  taggers  iron,  which  should  be  sub- 
ject to  a specific  duty  of  2 cents  per  pound,  and  it  is  also  affected  by  the  inconsistent 
duty  on  imported  tinned  sheet  iron,  known  as  tin  plate. 

John  A.  Iioebling’s  Sons  Company,  Trenton,  N.  J. — The  wire-rod  rolling  mill  of  this 
company  has  been  closed  for  nearly  two  years  because  it  is  impossible  to  compete 
with  imported  rods. 

Hartman  Steel  Company  Limited,  Beaver  Falls,  Pa. — No.  6 steel  wire  rods  have  been 
imported  largely  at  as  low  a duty  as  $11.50  per  ton,  which  is  permitted  under  the  rate 
of  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  as  against  the  specific  duty  of  $13.44  per  ton  which  is  levied 
on  No.  5 rods.  We  would  recommend  .8  cent  per  pound  specific  duty  on  rods  lighter 
than  No.  5. 

McDaniel  Harvey  Company,  Philadelphia . — Our  business  of  galvanizing  sheet  iron 
is  most  injuriously  affected  by  the  inadequate  duty  upon  tin  plates,  terne  plates,  and 
taggers  tin,  which  should  be  subjected  to  a duty  of  2|  cents  per  pound  instead  of  1 
cent.  In  regard  to  the  duty  on  sheet  and  taggers  iron  we  have  to  say  as  follows : 
Taggers  iron  has  been,  and  still  is,  dutiable  at  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  It  is  held  to 
comprise  sheets  as  heavy  as  No.  30  wire  gauge,  but  it  is  a fact,  admitted  both  by  con- 
sumers and  importers,  that  almost,  if  not  quite,  the  whole  consumption  is  of  Nos.  36 
and  38  gauge  or  lighter.  These  gauges  are  made  in  tin-plate  sizes,  namely,  10 
inches  by  14  inches,  14  inches  by  20  inches,  &c.  But  there  is  also  a great  deal  of  No. 
30  sheet  iron  used  for  various  purposes  which  is  made  in  larger  sheets  of  regular  sheet- 
iron  sizes,  and  which  is,  in  fact,  sheet  iron  and  uot  taggers  iron  at  all,  strictly  speak- 
ing. It  is  not  right  that  this  light  sheet,  the  finest  and  lightest  made,  should  be 
admitted  at  so  much  below  the  proper  duty  upon  other  gauges  of  light  sheet  iron,  say 
Nos.  29,  28,  and  27.  American  manufacturers  of  light  sheets  cannot  compete  with 
foreign  manufacturers  with  a duty  of  only  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  difficulty  of 
distinguishing  between  such  light  gauges  as  Nos.  29,  30,  &c.,  is  such  that  we  have 
reason  to  fear  that  sheets  heavier  than  No.  30  are  imported  under  the  guise  of  taggers 
iron,  instead  of  at  the  proper  duty  of  1£  cents  per  pound  as  sheet  iron.  The  makers 
of  light  sheets  suffer  much  in  consequence.  On  the  subject  of  undervalution  under 
the  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  per  cent,  it  is  needless  to  speak.  There  is  always  the  possi- 
bility of  it  while  the  ad  valorem  rate  exists,  and  we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  from 
comparison  of  the  prices,  at  times,  here  and  abroad,  that  such  has  been  the  case ; but 
sufficient  proof  is,  of  course,  difficult  to  obtain.  In  the  interest  of  a proper  tariff  re- 
form we  ask  that  the  schedule  for  sheet  iron  be  extended  so  as  to  comprise  all  gauges 
from  No.  25  to  No.  33,  instead  of  stopping  at  No.  29  as  at  present.  This  will  not  affect 
the  users  of  real  taggers  iron,  but  will  relieve  the  makers  of  light  sheets  in  this  coun- 
try and  stop  an  opening  for  imp  roper  importation.  In  regard  to  lieavifr  sheet  iron 
we  desire  to  point  out  the  absurdity,  to  say  nothing  of  the  injustice,  of  allowing  a 
higher  duty  upon  boiler  plate  than  upon  sheet  iron.  Boiler  plate  is  set  down  at  1£ 
cents  per  pound,  while  the  duty  on  sheets  up  to  No.  20  is  only  1.1  cents.  As  four  or 
five  times  more  boiler  plate  than  sheet  iron  can  be  rolled  with  the  same  expenditure 
of  time  and  labor,  sheet  iron  ought  fairly  to  have  a higher  rate  of  duty  than  the  for- 
mer. The  duty  on  boiler  plate  being  placed  at  cents  per  pound,  then  surely  sheet 
iron  from  No.  12  to  No.  20,  inclusive,  ought  to  have  a duty  adjusted'  higher  than  is 
now  imposed  upon  it,  or  at  least  1£  cent's  per  pound,  and  lighter  gauges  should  have 
still  higher  duties  to  correspond. 

George  G.  Lobdell,  president  Lobdell  Car-Wheel  Company,  Wilmington,  Del. — (11  I 
think  it  very  important  that  all  duties  should  be  specific,  and  if  they  are  so  levied  I 
believe  that  much  trouble  and  expense  in  collecting  them  will  be  saved,  and  much 
fraud  be  prevented.  (2)  The  largest  part  of  our  business  is  the  manufacture  of  chilled 
railroad  wheels,  chilled  rolls,  and  castings  of  iron  and  brass.  These  do  uot  come  in 
competition  with  like  articles  made  in  other  countries;  hence  we  are  not  directly  in- 
terested in  the  amount  of  duties  imposed  on  this  class  of  articles.  We  are,  however, 
indirectly  interested  in  the  general  prosperity  of  the  country,  which  prosperity  regu- 
lates the  demand  for  our  products.  This  demand  is  always  greatest  and  the  prices 
are  most  remunerative  when  the  country  isj>rosperous  and  the  finances  of  the  country 
are  in  a sound  condition,  with  the  balance  of  trade  in  favor  of  the  United  States, 


372  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


The  prosperity  of  the  agriculturist,  the  manufacturer,  the  artisan,  the  merchant,  and 
all  other  classes,  together  with  a sound  condition  of  the  finances  of  the  country,  can- 
not, in  my  opinion,  be  maintained  without  liberal  protection  on  all  articles  that  can 
be  grown  or  made  in  this  country.  I believe  that  the  stability  and  th$  perpetuity  of 
the  Republic  depend  on  the  intelligence  and  prosperity  of  the  American  laborer.  I 
am,  therefore,  in  favor  of  such  rates  of  duties  as  will  enable  the  people  of  this  country 
to  produce  or  manufacture  everything  that  our  soil,  climate,  forests,  mines,  and  manu- 
factories are  capable  of  producing,  and  this,  too,  without  being  compelled  to  reduce 
the  compensation  of  the  workingmeu  of  the  country  to  the  low  rate  paid  in  other 
countries.  This  company  also  manufactures  charcoal  pig-iron,  which  is  used  in  making 
railroad  wheels  and  chilled  rolls.  This  product  comes  into  direct  competition  with 
charcoal  pig-iron  made  in  Austria,  Italy,  Spain,  and  Sweden,  and  should  be  protected. 
A large  portion  of  the  cost  of  a ton  of  pig-iron  is  for  labor ; labor  in  cutting  and 
coaling  the  wood,  mining  the  ore,  hauling  the  coal  and  ore,  and  in  smelting  the  ore. 
In  view  of  this  fact,  and  considering  the  great  difference  between  the  cost  of  labor  in 
this  country  and  that  in  European  countries,  I think  that  there  should  be  a duty  of 
not  less  than  $10  per  ton  on  all  pig-iron  imported  that  is  smelted  with  charcoal. 

Miller , Metcalf  Parkin , Pittsburgh , Pa. — (1)  We  manufacture  crucible  steel  of 

“ Crescent  ” brand.  (2)  With  regard  to  the  cost  of  production  it  would  be  impracti- 
cable for  us  to  make  reply  within  the  time  allotted.  In  order  to  obtain  some  of  the 
items  it  would  be  necessary  for  us  to  go  over  our  books  of  original  entry  for  three 
years  past,  inasmuch  as  the  specifications,  as  desired,  are  not  such  as  we  find  neces- 
sary in  our  business,  and  to  reply  to  others  would  be  to  publish  details  which  are 
confidential,  and,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  are  collated  for  the  information  and  use 
of  members  of  our  firm  only.  We  might  say,  however,  that  in  the  three  years  ending 
June  30,  18  5,  very  nearly  one-half  of  the  aggregate  amount  received  in  sales  of  steel 
was  paid  out  directly  in  wages  to  our  own  employes,  and  that  this  does  not  include 
raw  material,  fuel,  or  repairs.  (3)  Our  works  cover  about  8 acres.  The  buildings 
are  brick,  iron,  and  wood  of  the  most  substantial  character.  The  machinery  is  of  the 
most  approved  patterns  and  placed  on  heavy  foundations.  The  a mount  of  capital  in- 
vested is  $1,000,000.  (4)  The  foreign  article  of  a -similar  kind  is  subject  to  both  ad  va- 

lorem and  specific  duties.  (5)  Our  location  is  of  the  best  as  regards  manufacturing, 
obtaining  supplies,  and  transportation  to  market.  Steam  power  is  used.  Wages  are 
high,  and  such  as  the  best  and  most  skilled  workmen  secure.  Taxes  are  high  and 
are  imposed  on  all  property,  both  real  and  personal.  Regarding  the  manufacture  of 
similar  articles  abroad  we  rely  for  statements  of  cost,  &c.,  upon  the  consular  reports 
and  information  obtained  in  like  manner.  This  will  apply  both  to  raw  material  and 
wages.  Regarding  the  evasion  of  the  duty  on  imported  articles  we  can  only  state  our 
belief  that  it  is  frequently  done  in  invoices  made  by  foreign  manufacturers  to  their 
own  representatives  in  this  country  and  which  must  of  necessity  be  arbitrary.  We 
would  favor  specific  duties  wherever  possible,  and  when  an  ad  valorem  duty  is  a ne- 
cessity would  be  in  favor  of  having  it  based  upon  value  to  be  determined  at  the  point 
of  entry.  The  best  specific  duty  which  could  be  placed  upon  the  low  grades  of  steel 
would  be  45  per  cent,  of  4 cents,  or  1.8  cents  per  pound ; less  than  this  would  be  of 
very  little  use  to  the  trade  in  general. 

A.  R.  Whitney  Co.,  New  York  City. — Believing  it  is  necessary  to  tell  some  business 
secrets  for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  anything,  I would  state  that  we  are  obliged 
to  sell  steel  hoops  cut  to  length,  namely,  If  inches  by  ‘No.  18  and  If  inches  by  No.  17, 
delivered,  for  1.9  cents  per  pound,  which  equals  $42.56  per  gross  ton,  or  lose  sales,  as 
our  customers  can  buy  German  steel  hoops  at  this  price.  The  duty  on  steel  of  every 
• description  valued  at  4 cents  per  pound  or  less  is  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  these 
hoops  to  cost  $42.56  here  must  be  sold  at  the  point  of  shipment  at  £6  per  gross  ton, 
or  a trifle  more  than  $29.  Every  dollar  of  the  difference  is  represented  by  increased  cost 
of  labor  here.  Instead  of  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  45  per  ceut.  we  actually  need  three- 
fourths  of  a cent  per  pound  on  steel  hoops  of  large  sizes,  If  inches  by  No.  1 8 and  larger ; 
1 cent  on  If  inches  to  seven-eighths  inch  or  1 inch ; and  If  cents  on  smaller  sizes. 
Common  steel  plates  cost  £7  at  Glasgow,  Scotland,  or  If  cents  per  pound,  and  the  best 
are  £8  10s.,  or  under  2 cents  per  pound,  f.  o.  b.  One  cent  a pound  duty  is  little 
enough  on  steel  plates  three-sixteeuths  inch  and  thicker,  and  If  cents  on  three-six- 
teenths to  No.  14,  If  cents  on  Nos.  14  to  20,  and  If  cents  on  thinner. 

O.  P.  Cobb,  president  Cobb's  Iron  and  Nail  Company,  Aurora,  Indiana. — I think  the 
country  is  suffering  more  from  tariff  tinkering  and  the  fear  of  it  than  from  anything 
else.  Within  the  last  six  years,  since  I have  been  manufacturing  nails  by  my  patent 
processes  from  wrought  scrap-iron,  the  price  of  raw  material  has  come  down  from  $40 
and  $50  per  ton  to  $14  and  $18  per  ton,  and  tenpenny  nails  have  fallen  from  $5  per 
keg  to  $1.70,  and  other  branches  of  business  have  experienced  nearly  the  same  change. 
And  this  ruinous  change  in  prices  has  all  taken  place  while  we  have  had  a good  cur- 
rency and  plenty  of  it,  without  any  material  change  having  been  made  in  the  tariff 
by  Congress,  but  under  its  constant  talk  aud  threats  to  change  the  present  tariff, 
specifically,  horizontally,  or  to  free  trade,  for  party  purposes.  This,  in  my  opinion, 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


373 


has  done  more  to  destroy  confidence  and  ruin  the  former  prosperity  of  our  country 
even  under  the  present  tariff  than  all  the  faults  that  have  yet  been  shown  in  that 
tariff.  So  there  must  be  some  better  remedy  for  this  evil  than  change  of  tariff.  This 
great  calamity  that  has  befallen  the  business  of  the  country  may  easily  be  remedied 
by  Congress  iff  it  will  pass  a resolution  to  let  the  present  tariff  alone. 

Robert  Hare  PoweVs  Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia. — We  really  cannot  give  the  cost  of 
our  material  or  product,  as  we  consider  such  a strictly  private  business  matter. 

J.  G.  Butler,  Jr.,  General  Manager  Brier  Hill  Iron  and  Coal  Company,  Youngstown, 
Ohio. — Since  our  very  pleasant  acquaintance  began,  many  years  ago,  I have  neither 
neglected  nor  refused  to  furnish  you  promptly  any  statistics  asked  for,  and  it  has  al- 
ways given  me  pleasure  heretofore  to  do  so,  but  in  this  instance  I feel  constrained  to 
refuse. 

R.  W.  Comstock,  Secretary  Rhode  Island  Horse  Shoe  Company,  Providence,  R.  J. — As 
we  are  the  only  manufacturers  of  horse  shoes  in  New  England  it  would  be  hardly  just 
to  ourselves  to  make  the  report  you  desire. 

James  Greenwood,  Secretary  Thames  Iron  Works,  Norwich,  Conn. — We  never  answer 
such  inquiries  relative  to  our  business,  no  matter  by  whom  made. 

Sheldon  fy  Co.,  Auburn,  N.  Y. — We  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  fill  out  these  sheets, 
but  we  want  to  express  to  Secretary  Manning,  and  through  him  to  Congress,  our  aver- 
sion to  any  change  in  the  tariff  or  any  agitation  on  the  subject.  We  are  just  recov- 
ering from  a business  depression,  and  now  that  we  begin  to  see  the  light  of  day  we 
hope  and  pray  that  the  Secretary  or  Congress  will  not  commence  agitation  of  the 
tariff  question,  which  will  be  certain  to  raise  the  very  mischief  with  all  kinds  of  busi- 
ness. There  is  nothing  that  a business  man  fears  so  much  as  the  agitation  of  busi- 
ness subjects  by  Congress.  It  is  with  a sigh  of  relief  that  we  read  of  its  adjournment. 
Leave  the  tariff  as  it  is  and  within  a twelve-month  every  shop  will  be  busy  and  the 
wrhole  country  will  be  happy. 

James  Rowland  Co.,  Philadelphia. — While  we  duly  respect  your  impressions  that 
it  is  proper  policy  to  give  the  information  asked,  we  cannot  but  differ  from  such  view. 
The  interrogatories  are  too  inquisitorial,  and  a positive  departure  from  our  established 
impressions  that  the  least  developed  about  one’s  private  business  affairs  the  better  it 
is  for  that  business.  The  present  tariff  is  good  enough.  If  it  is  bringing  in  too  much 
revenue  all  the  better ; let  it  come.  Pay  off  the  bonds,  build  ships,  strengthen  our 
present  unprotected  coast  line,  and  with  such  a disposition  of  the  excess  of  revenue, 
eonsumptiouofourproducts  would  be  established,  and  our  labor  would  be  compensated 
far  above  foreign  pauper  labor.  If  they  do  otherwise  by  cutting  down  protection 
we  will  be  a nation  of  discontents,  which  will  be  destructive  to  Democratic  rule  in 
the  future.  It  seems  to  us  that  replying  to  Secretaf^  Manning’s  inquiries  simply 
accords  with  the  idea  of  a change  in  the  tariff  beings  necessary.  We  have  no  such 
accord.  We  positively  protest  against  the  change. 

Thomas  M.  Carnegie , Chairman  Carnegie  Brothers  Co.  Limited,  Pittsburgh , Pa. — Not- 
withstanding your  able  argument  in  favor  of  reporting  details  of  cost  of  production 
of  iron  and  steel,  as  requested  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  in  a less  objec- 
tionable form  by  yourself,  I am  of  the  opinion  that  our  interest  wrould  not  be  served 
by  making  such  returns  as  you  indicate. 

National  Tube  Works  Company,  McKeesport,  Pa. — We  respectfully  decline  to  give 
Secretary  Manning’s  circular  any  attention  whatever,  as  we  are  not  in  sympathy  with 
Mr.  Manning’s  ideas,  and  therefore  positively  decline  to  impart  the  information  called 

for. 

Mahoning  Valley  Iron  Company,  Youngstown,  Ohio. — We  do  not  keep  our  accouuis 
in  such  a manner  that  we  cau  answer  these  questions  with  any  sort  of  accuracy,  and 
we  do  not  like  to  make  an  estimate,  which  may  afterwards  prove  to  be  wrong. 

Ogden  Bolton , President  Bolton  Steel  Company,  Canton,  Ohio. — Our  average  cost  would 
give  you  no  information  whatever,  as  it  includes  tool  steel,  cast  steel,  and  common 
steel,  and  the  respective  proportions  have  not  been  uniform  during  the  three  years. 
We  therefore  cannot  comply  with  your  request. 

W.  H.  Wallace,  President  Jefferson  Iron  Works,  Steubenville,  Ohio. — We  beg  to  decline 
to  furnish  the  information  asked  for. 

Globe  Rolling  Mill  Company , Cincinnati,  Ohio. — We  would  be  pleased  to  make  up  the 
statistics  yon  want,  but  we  fear  they  would  be  misleading,  as  the  average  cost  would 
be  higher  than  it  should  be. 

Samuel  Laughlin,  President  Junction  Iron  Company,  Wheeling,  W.  Va. — The  inquiries 
are  such  as  I decline  answering. 

Belmont  Nail  Company,  Wheeling,  W.  Va. — It  is  not  convenient  at  this  time,  in  con- 
sequence of  absence  of  office  force,  to  go  into  the  details  you  require,  which  we  re- 
gret. m 

N.  E.  Whitaker,  Secretary  Whitaker  Iron  Company,  Wheeling,  W.  Fa.— We  are  averse 
to  stating  the  private  features  of  our  business,  and  espeoiallv  to  giving  our  cost  of 
production.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  can  and  need  only  look  about  him  to  see 
the  idle  mills  and  workshops,  the  idle  workmen,  and  starving  families  living  wholly  on 


374  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


charity,  and  the  paralyzed  condition  of  business  generally.  Strikes  have  been  prev- 
alent over  the  entire  country.  Hands  are  unwilling  to  accept  reduced  wages,  and 
factories  are  idle  because  of  inability  to  pay  good  wages  and  avoid  bankruptcy. 
What  more  does  he  need  ? Further  reductions  of  duty  simply  mean  greater  importa- 
tions, greater  shrinkage  in  values  of  American  plants,  and  more  idle  people  and  cap- 
ital. This  has  been  demonstrated  sufficiently  without  the  manufacturers  of  the 
country  opening  their  private  ledgers. 

A Wheeling  Nail  Manufacturer. — A proper  way  to  ascertain  the  cost  of  making  nails 
would  be  to  build  a nail  factory. 


[Mahoning  Lodge,  No.  1,  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron  and  Steel  WTorkers,  scrap- 
iron  and  steel,  bar-iron,  tin  plates,  tagger’s  iron,  iron  ore,  coal.'] 

Youngstown,  Ohio,  October  17, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir  : At  a regular  meeting  of  Mahoning  Lodge,  No.  1,  Amalgamated 
Association  of  Iron  and  Steel  Workers  of  the  United  States,  the  fol- 
lowing preamble  and  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted,  and  or- 
dered transmitted  to  the  Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury: 

Whereas  the  Hon.  D.  Manning  has  forwarded  to  the  manufacturers 
of  the  country  circular  letters  asking  for  information  on  the  tariff  ques- 
tion ; and 

Whereas  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge,  none  of  these  circulars  have 
been  sent  to  the  different  labor  organizations,  nor  have  they  been  asked 
for  their  views  on  this  important  subject  ; and 

Whereas  we  believe  that  the  workingmen  are  as  vitally  interested 
in  this  matter  as  their  employers,  as  any  measure  that  tends  to  benefit 
the  manufacturer  will  be  for  the  best  interest  of  the  workingmen ; and 

Whereas  we  believe  that  an  injustice  was  done  to  workingmen  of 
the  country  by  the  passage  of  some  of  the  sections  in  u Schedule  C. — 
Metals,”  referring  to  scrap-iron  and  steel,  bar  iron,  tin  plates,  &c.  : 
Therefore,  be  it 

Resolved  by  this  lodge  in  regular  meeting  assembled , That  we  ask  for 
the  following  changes  in  those  sections  aforementioned,  and  we  most 
respectfully  and  earnestly  ask  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  recom- 
mend the  same  to  Congress : 

First , that  a rate  of  $10  per  ton  be  placed  on  all  kinds  of  scrap  and 
refuse  iron  and  steel,  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured. 

Second , that  the  rates  on  bar-iron  be  as  follows  : l-^-  of  a cent  per 
pound,  1^0-  of  a cent  per  pound,  l-ft  of  a cent  per  pound. 

Tim  d , that  iron  or  steel  sheets,  or  plates  or  taggers’  iron,  commercially 
known  as  tin  plates,  be  placed  at  2J  cents  per  pound. 

Fourth , that  the  duties  on  coal  and  ore  remain  as  at  present. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

A.  W.  HUBLER, 

President. 

JAMES  LYDON, 

Secretary. 


REVISION  OE  THE  TARIFF. 


r>  r*  f> 


O i O 


[Tlie  same.]  -J 

Youngstown,  Ohio,  November  28,  1885. 

Bon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C.  : 

Sir  : At  a regular  meeting  of  tbe  above-mentioned  lodge  the  follow- 
ing communication  was  presented,  and,  after  being  unanimously  agreed 
to,  was  ordered  transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  tbe  Treasury  : 

We  are  strongly  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  specific  duties  rather  than 
the  ad  valorem  system,  believing,  from  all  the  information  obtainable, 
that  the  laws  under  that  system  are  evaded,  and  thereby  the  Govern- 
ment loses  large  amounts  in  the  way  of  revenue,  and  the  American 
manufacturer  loses  his  markets,  and  the  workingmen  are  deprived  of 
the  means  of  earning  their  living.  Therefore  we  would  urge  upon 
Copgress  that  the  change  be  made  wherever  necessary  from  ad  valorem 
to  specific  rates,  and  especially  do  we  desire  that  this  be  done  on  all 
classes  of  iron  and  steel,  and  of  any  article  or  articles  of  which  they  are 
the  component  parts  of  chief  value. 

First.  Bar  and  merchant  iron  of  different  sizes,  as  well  as  hoop-iron, 
samples  of  which  have  been  forwarded  to  the  Department,  being  manu- 
factured by  Brown,  Bonnell  & Co.,  where  the  members  of  our  lodge 
are  employed. 

Cost  of  production,  with  the  details,  as  suggested  in  the  circular  from 
the  Department,  from  A to  5,  inclusive,  will  no  doubt  be  accurately  an- 
swered by  returns  from  the  different  manufacturers  of  the  country. 

Regarding  the  importation  of  scrap-iron,  on  which  we  asked  that  a 
rate  of  $10  per  ton  be  placed,  we  desire  to  say  that  whilst  the  amount 
of  this  article  entered  for  consumption  for  the  year  ending  June  80, 
1884,  is  given  as  51,245  tons,  valued,  at  $718,329,  it  is  generally  be- 
lieved that  the  law  on  this  article  is  in  some  manner  evaded,  and  that  a 
much  larger  quantity  is  imported  than  appears  in  the  custom-house  re- 
turns. 

Tbe  production  of  a ton  of  bar-iron  in  England  does  not  cost  quite  one- 
half  what  it  does  to  produce  one  ton  in  the  United  States,  tbe  difference 
in  the  cost  being  caused  largely  by  the  difference  in  the  wages  paid  in 
both  countries  for  the  labor  performed  in  the  production  of  a ton  of 
iron.  We  submit  the  following  list  of  prices  paid  in  England  and  the 
United  States: 

GREAT  BRITAIN. 


North  of 
England. 

Staffordshire. 

Puddling,  per  day,  average 

$1  35 
2 01 

$1  35to$l  40 
1 50 

Muck  rolling,  per  day 

Bar-mill  rolling,  per  day 

2 12 

1 75 

Heating,  per  day 

1 55 

1 40 

Other  labor  employed  in  and  around  the  mills  from  2s.,  or  50  cents,  to 
3s.  6d.,  or  87  cents,  per  day. 


UNITED  STATES. 


Pittsburgh  prices : 

Puddling $5  00 

Average  earning  per  day 3 75 

Muck  rolling . . per  ton . . 6‘2£ 

Rolling  bar-mill •. do 63 

Heating do 63 


Other  wages  paid  from  $1.10  to  $2.50  per  day.  Owing  to  the  difference 
in  the  wages  paid  in  both  countries,  and  the  further  fact  that  the  wages 
of  the  skilled  workmen  employed  in  the  rolling  mills  of  the  country  are 


376  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


controlled  by  the  price  of  bar-iron,  we  ask  that  the  rates  on  the  several 
sizes  be  placed  at  the  figures  named  in  our  resolutions  of  October  17. 
In  reference  to  the  question  of  tin-plates,  as  we  look  at  this  subject  it 
seems  to  us  a matter  of  great  importance  not  only  to  the  iron  and  steel 
workers  of  the  country,  but  is  of  equal  importance  to  a large  number 
of  American  citizens  engaged  in  the  mining  of  ore  and  coal,  as  well  as 
those  employed  in  the  running  of  the  blast  furnaces,  besides  all  of  these 
men  who  would  find  employment  in  the  handling  and  transportation  of 
the  different  articles  that  enter  into  the  production  of  tin-plates.  In 
view,  therefore,  of  the  largeAntbre'sts  involved  in  this  matter  we  are 
decidedly  in  favor  of  placing  the  rates  asked  for  in  our  resolutions  on 
this  article.  We  further  wish  to  say  that  if  the  amount  of  tin-plates 
imported  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1884,  and  reported  in  custom- 
house returns  as  527,881,321  pounds,  valued  at  $18,931,071,  had  been 
manufactured  by  American  citizens,  and  thereby  have  retained  the 
money  that  was  paid  to  the  foreign  manufacturer  and  importer,  and  have 
put  it  into  circulation  amongst  our  own  people,  we  believe  that  it  would 
have  had  a very  decided  tendency  to  relieve  the  depression  that  has  so 
long  existed  in  the  iron  business,  by  giving  employment  to  a large  num- 
ber of  workingmen  at  remunerative  wages,  thereby  enabling  us  to  live 
in  such  a manner  as  becomes  citizens  of  this  country;  and  as  we  believe 
the  legislation  asked  for  in  our  resolutions  would  have  a tendency  to 
develop  the  tin-plate  trade  as  well  as  other  industries  connected  there- 
with, and  thereby  make  us  independent,  in  an  industrial  sense,  of  other 
nations,  we  therefore  urge  upon  Congress  the  serious  consideration  of 
this  question,  believing  that  if  that  body  will  take  the  right  view  of  the 
subject  such  measures  will  be  enacted  into  law  as  will  accomplish  the 
end  desired. 

We  also  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  cotton-tie  ques- 
tion, as  being  one  of  the  inequalities  existing  under  our  present  tariff 
laws.  To  us  as  practical  men  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  reason 
why  a cotton-tie  made  out  of  hoop  iron  that  is  paying  1J  cents  per 
pound  should,  when  cut  up  into  lengths  of  eleven  feet,  with  a few  holes 
punched  in  it,  and  with  a buckle  strung  or  riveted  thereon,  be  admitted  at 
an  ad  valorem  rate  of  35  per  cent.,  and  we  insist  that  Congress  ought  at 
the  earliest  opportunity,  in  justice  both  to  the  large  number  of  workmen 
who  would  secure  employment  in  the  production  of  this  article,  as  well  as 
the  manufacturer  whose  capital  is  being  put  into  the  mills  and  the  shops 
for  the  production  of  cotton-ties,  place  the  duty  at  1J  cents  per  pound  in- 
stead of  the  present  ad  valorem  rate  of  35  per  cent.  Taking  this  view 
of  the  subject,  we  would  urge  upon  Congress  the  necessity  of  prompt  ac- 
tion. In  conclusion,  we  further  wish  to  say  that,  in  our  judgment,  the 
best  interests  of  the  people  at  large  are  advancedwhen  there  is  employ- 
ment for  every  person  who  wishes  to  labor,  and  when  the  men  who  have 
invested  their  capital  in  the  industrial  and  agricultural  enterprises  of 
the  country  are  receiving  a just  and  fair  recompense  for  the  money  in- 
vested. Believing  this  to  be  a correct  statement,  we  are  strongly  op- 
posed to  the  placing  of  pig-iron  ore  and  coal,  or  of  any  article  or  articles 
that  can  be  produced  or  manufactured  in  this  country,  on  the  free  list; 
and  as  we  think  that  Congress  can  by  favorable  action  very  materially 
assist  in  bringing  about  the  desirable  condition  of  affairs  already  spoken 
of,  and  in  order  to  accomplish  this  we  ask  that  they  take  these  views 
iuto  consideration,  and  give  us  the  relief  asked  for. 

Kespectfully  submitted. 

THOMAS  WILLIAMS.. 

MICHAEL  SULLIVAN. 

JAMES  LYDON. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  377 

[Sub-Lodges  of  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron,  Steel,  and  Tin  Workers  of  tbo 
United  States — Cotton-ties,  pig  iron,  speigdeisen,  bar  iron,  tin-plates,  cfc.  ] 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  : 

Sir:  Your  circular  letter  of  November  4, 1885,  having  been  read  and 
discussed  in  the  various  sub-lodges  of  the  “Amalgamated  Association 
of  Iron  and  Steel  and  Tin  Workers  of  the  United  States,”  said  circular 
letter  having  been  generally  approved  and  commended,  inasmuch  as 
we  the  workingmen  are  afforded  an  excellent  opportunity  to  inform 
Congress  as  to  just  such  improvements  as  we  desire,  and  as  we  think 
the  condition  of  the  iron,  steel,  and  tin  industries  of  the  United  States 
demands  should  be  immediately  adopted  ; therefore  committees  were 
appointed  by  the  sub-lodges  to  meet  jointly  and  draft  a reply  to  said 
circular  letter:  Now,  as  such  committees,  jointly  assembled,  we  do 
most  respectfully  ask  you  to  recommend  to  Congress  the  changes  and 
amendments  to  the  present  tariff  laws  hereafter  mentioned,  and  that 
you  transmit  this  paper  to  Congress  when  assembled. 

(1)  A specific  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound  should  be  placed  on  what 
is  commercially  known  as  “ cotton-ties.” 

(2)  A duty  of  $10  per  ton  on  pig  iron  ; also  the  same  rate  on  spei- 
geleisen. 

(3)  A duty  of  $10  per  ton  on  old  rails  and  scrap  of  all  kinds  of  iron 
and  steel. 

(4)  On  bar  and  merchant  iron  the  rates  should  be  l ^-  cents,  13^0-  cents, 
lf0-  cents  per  pound. 

(5)  A specific  duty  of  2£  cents  per  pound  on  tin  and  terne  plates  and 
taggers’  iron. 

The  fact  is  that  the  iron  and  steel  industries  of  this  country  are  de- 
pressed and  languishing  to-day  owing  to  the  sharp  and  successful  com- 
petition of  foreign  manufacturers,  made  possible  by  the  low  rates  of 
wages  of  the  working  people  of  Europe. 

Therefore,  in  order  to  protect  and  maintain  the  dignity  and  manhood 
of  American  citizens  against  the  degraded  and  low  priced  labor  of 
Europe,  we  again  most  respectfully  ask  your  able  assistance  and  co- 
operation in  securing  the  necessary  legislation  by  Congress  at  the  next 
session. 

DANIEL  MOSS,  Chairman. 
ROGER  EVANS,  Secretary. 
GEO.  D.  GESSAMAN, 
MICHAEL  SULLIVAN, 
THOMAS  M.  JONES, 
DAVID  L.  DAVIES, 
THOMAS  WILLIAMS, 
JAMES  LEYDEN, 

J.  R.  WHITE, 

JOHN  JOHNSON, 

REES  L.  JONES, 

Joint  Committe. 


378  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[The  McKeesport  Iron  Works,  sheet  iron.'] 

Pittsburgh,  November  6,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  O. : 

Dear  Sir  : We  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
valued  circular  letter  of  date  August  10  ultimo,  which  we  understand 
has  been  so  generally  addressed  to  the  various  manufacturers  of  the 
United  States,  and  which  so  emphatically  refers  to  the  abuses  of  the 
Government’s  system  of  the  collection  of  duties  upon  “imports,”  as  they 
may  be  and  are  “ largely  evaded  by  undervaluation  whenever  the  duties 
are  levied  ad  valorem,”  and  asking  for  “information  on  this  subject 
which  may  be  useful  to  Congress  in  fiscal  legislation,  and  as  an  aid  in 
the  improvement  of  the  customs-revenue  system.” 

As  therein  requested,  we  respectfully  define  ourselves  as  manufact- 
urers of  sheet  irons,  more  particularly  of  the  best  or  highest  grades 
known  to  the  trade,  and  also  of  the  speciality  the  patent  planished  sheet 
iron  of  commerce  (or  the  American-Kussia) ; and  although  we  deprecate 
any  action  of  Congress  just  now  which  would  likely  lead  to  a protracted 
discussion  of  the  present  taritf,  having  for  its  purpose  the  reduction  of 
duties,  as  might  be  induced  by  those  opposed  to  the  valued  theory  of 
protection  to  American  or  home  industries,  and  thus  disturbing  again 
our  now  fairly  improved  condition  of  trade,  even  under  its  influences, 
with  its  several  inequalities  and  unreasonably  discriminating  duties  on 
several  grades  of  sheet  iron,  as  included  in  Schedule  C (metals),  which 
might  simply  and  reasonably  be  changed $ yet  you  will  permit  us  to 
enroll  ourselves  as  most  decidedly  opposed  to  any  ad  valorem  duty 
upon  sheet  irons  of  any  description. 

Ad  valorem  duties  invariably  lead  to  undervaluations  or  fraud.  Such 
duty  (30  per  cent.)  now  attaches  to  taggers  irons.  This  sheet  iron  is  a 
high  grade,  mostly  cleaned  or  pickled  or  cold  rolled  of  thinest  gauges, 
Nos.  30  to  40  W.  G.,  inclusive,  and  thus  necessarily  of  high  cost,  in 
foreign  or  English  markets  nearly  double  the  price  of  common  sheet  iron 
(singles),  yet  the  valuation  attaching  to  such  imports  of  taggers  iron, 
as  reported  through  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  (United  States)  for  the 
several  past  years,  exhibits  a much  lower  valuation  than  sheet  irons 
(ordinary)  of  gauges  Nos.  25  to  29,  W.  G.,  inclusive,  which  fact  clearly 
demonstrates  the  fraud  prepetrated  on  the  Government  and  the  clear 
purpose  of  those  importers  and  foreign  manufacturers  who  have  always 
strenuously  worked  to  maintain  this  only  ad  valorem  duty  attaching  to 
“ sheet  irons.” 

For  several  years  the  duty  collected  on  these  high-priced  irons  has 
been  only  about  cents  per  pound,  when  common  sheet  irons  have 
paid  a duty  of  l-^-  and  1J  cents  per  pound,  according  to  gauge,  up  to  and 
including  No.  29,  W.  G. 

As  on  a parity  with  other  sheet  irons,  taggers  irons  should  be  dutia- 
ble at  about  two  cents  per  pound  (specific).  Again,  these  irons  are 
usually  shipped  boxed,  and  it  is  quite  well  understood  that  a further 
fraud  is  frequently  practiced  by  mixing  or  packiug  sheet  irons,  with 
rates  of  duty  of  1-^  cents  or  1 J cents  per  pound,  with  these  in  such  way 
as  may  foil  the  ordinary  inspection  of  United  States  Examiners. 

Ad  valorem  duties  as  a rule  afford  no  just  or  adequate  protection  to 
American  labor  as  against  the  foreign  element  with  their  lowest  values, 
as  when  such  govern  the  competition  with  American  products  and 
prices  are  the  lowest  the  duties  are  then  most  minimized,  when  truly  they 
should  be  most  stable,  fixed,  and  protective. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  379 

This  inequality  of  duty,  as  we  argue,  has  prevented  the  manufacture 
iu  this  country  of  these  grades  of  iron. 

The  high  grades  of  pickled  or  cleaned  or  cold-rolled  sheet-irons  are 
not  comparatively  or  sufficiently  well  protected,  with'  the  extra  duty 
above  common  sheet-irons  of  oue-fourtli  cent  per  pound  (attaching),  in- 
asmuch as  the  present  law  (Schedule  0)  requires  this  duty  to  attach  only 
when  the  two  or  several  processes  of  pickling,  or  cleaning  and  cold  roll- 
ing, are  discovered,  or  known  in  an  expert  sense,  by  the  examiner,  either 
process,  however,  determining  improved  or  advanced  condition  of  manu- 
facture, and  such  extra  expense  of  labor  as  to  warrant  a higher  duly 
than  on  common  sheet-irons — to  which  classification  such  irons  now  are 
usually  relegated. 

The  interpolation  of  the  word  u or”  for  “ and  ” in  the  description  of 
these  irons,  between  the  words  u cleaned  ” and  “ cold-rolled,”  would  ad- 
just this  great  inequality  of  duty,  as  now  generally  collected. 

The  duties  on  sheet-irons,  under  the  present  tariff  laws,  are  only 
barely  sufficient  to  permit  the  manufacture  of  most  grades  in  this  coun- 
try, as  against  the  foreign  competition,  and  to  insure  the  present  rates 
of  wages  to  our  workmen,  which  are  none  too  liberal  for  the  life  and 
improved  social  condition,  through  such  as  is  most  fortunately  bestowed 
on  them,  on  the  American  basis  of  advancement  in  life  and  the  “equal- 
ity of  opportunity,”  which  our  institutions  and  methods  further  insure  to 
the  “ army  of  workers.” 

We  could  enlarge  specifically  upon  the  vast  benefits  of  the  system  of 
protection,  as  even  solar  embraced  in  our  present  tariff  duties,  and  show 
how  particularly  the  consumer  has  been  benefited  by  lower  prices  than 
when  the  needed  manufactures  were  mostly  imported ; but  in  no  case 
can  we  so  distinctly  emphasize  it  as  in  the  matter  of  governing  prices 
of  imported  Russia  sheet-iron  with  which  we  have  competed  for  many 
years,  with  the  patent  planished  sheet-iron  so  successfully,  by  means 
of  fair,  equitable,  protective  duty  not  co-equal,  however,  with  that 
attaching  to  other  irons  on  an  ad  valorem  basis. 

The  prices  of  this  imported  iron  to  the  consumer,  have  ranged  for  the 
last  several  years  30  to  50  per  cent,  lower,  than  such  commanded  before 
the  successful  competition  of  the  American  goods*,  and  whilst  this 
benefit  has  so  distinctly  been  assured  the  fact  exists  that  the  duty  has 
in  no  sense  proved  prohibitive,  as  the  importations  of  the  foreign  goods 
have  varied  but  little  from  year  to  year,  as  the  United  States  statistics 
prove,  this  case  simply  showing  what  the  establishment  of  such  indus- 
tries in  this  country  usually  proves;  namely,  the  employment  of  home 
labor  at  good  wages,  a guarantee  of  lower  prices,  forcing  only  lesser 
profits,  either  upon  the  importers  or  non-producer,  or  upon  the  foreign 
manufacturer. 

This  high  grade  of  glanced-iron  was  only  formerly,  exclusively,  made 
in  Russia,  and  controlled  iu  this  country  by  a syndicate  of  buyers,  and 
is,  as  also  the  American  patent  planished  iron,  in  the  most  advanced 
and  expensive  state  of  manufacture  and  finish,  through  labor  alone; 
and  the  competition  of  the  foreign  article  must  result  disastrously  with- 
out the  now  only  fair  protection,  when  we  can  assert  that  the  relative 
wages  paid  in  Russia  and  our  country  stand  for  skilled  workmen,  in 
about  the  ratio  of  80  cents  (the  very  highest)  per  day  in  Russia  as  against 
$4,  $5,  and  $6  per  day  in  America ; this  American  product  is  supplied 
at  a cheap  value  to  the  distributing  merchants  throughout  the  United 
States,  thus  largely  adding  its  support  to  the  inter-State  commerce  of 
our  country. 

The  senior  member  of  our  firm  (Mr.  W.  D.  Wood)  has  just  returned 


380  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

from  a “tour  of  Europe,”  being  one  of  thorough  inspection  of  the  sheet- 
iron  mills  of  England,  France,  and  Belgium,  &c.,  and  his  absence  must 
plead  our  execuse  for  delayed  answer  to  your  valued  letter. 

His  investigation  developed  nothing  so  fully  as  the  fact  of  the  great 
disparity  of  wages  for  skilled  and  unskilled  labor,  existing  and  paid  in 
those  countries  and  our  own,  particularly  about  the  sheet-iron  mills  at 
Huy,  Liege,  and  in  England,  a large  amount  of  the  unskilled  work 
in  either  country  being  unfortunately  done  by  women  and  children. 

The  highest  wages  per  day  for  skilled  labor,  in  France  and  Belgium, 
being  about  6 francs  or  $1.20  per  day ; for  unskilled,  from  lh  francs  to  2£ 
francs  or  30centsto  50  cents  per  day $ in  England  about  in  the  same  ratio ; 
say  shillings  as  to  francs.  The  lowest  wages  for  unskilled  labor  about  ou 
several  mills  is  $1.30  per  day  and  skilled  labor  about  as  noted  above. 

As  manufacturers  of  sheet-irons  we  are  particularly  interested  in  the 
development  of  the  tin  and  terne  plate  manufacture  in  this  country. 
Tin  and  terne  plates  of  commerce  being  but  “sheet-iron”  coated  with 
tin  aud  tin  and  lead,  and  would  respectfully  urge  such  adequate  and  in- 
creased rate  of  duty  as  would  insure  this  industry  to  this  country,  but  as 
this  interest  and  question  has  been  ably  represen  ted  and  discussed  through 
a communication  of  the  “Tin  Plate  Association  of  the  United  States” 
to  you  we  are  content  to  add  our  indorsement  of  same. 

We  have  the  honor  to  remain,  very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient, 

W.  I).  WOOD  & CO.  (limited), 

W.  D.  WOOD,  Chairman. 


f Phelps,  Dodge  & Co.,  metals. ] 

New  York,  August  14,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  the  31st  July,  we  beg 
to  inclose  herewith  a list  of  the  leading  articles  imported  by  us,  with 
their  present  duties. 

With  the  few  exceptions  noted,  these  duties  are  now  all  “specific.” 

Specific  duties. — We  are  convinced  of  the  great  advantage  to  the  Gov- 
ernment and  to  the  importers  of  simple  specific  duties  on  all  metals. 

They  are  easily  collected  and  cannot  be  evaded  except  by  direct  fraud 
in  weight. 

Under  the  present  onerous  and  ill-regulated  Treasury  laws,  it  is  im- 
possible, on  many  goods,  to  collect  “ad  valorem”  duties  with  fairness 
either  to  the  Government  or  the  importer,  or  to  arrive  at  what  is  a just 
market  value. 

Many  goods  are  not  kept  in  stock  in  foreign  countries  iu  large  quan- 
tities, and  must  be  contracted  for  months  previous  to  shipment,  in  order 
to  give  time  for  manufacture. 

During  this  interval,  in  markets  constantly  fluctuating,  the  selling 
value  of  the  goods  may  largely  change. 

But  by  law  the  invoice  must  be  at  exact  cost , whether  higher  or  lower 
than  the  value  of  the  day.  This  the  exporter  swears  to,  and  the  consul 
certifies  that  this  cost  is  present  market  value — often  a manifest  ab- 
surdity. 

On  arrival  these  goods  are  again  valued  by  the  appraiser,  ou  whose 
decision  duties  are  levied,  without  reference  to  cost  or  to  the  consular 
certificate. 

If  his  decision  places  present  value  above  contract  cost,  prices  must 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


381 


be  advanced;  but  if,  owing  to  change  in  market,  present  value  is  far 
below  cost,  no  allowance  is  made,  and  the  importer  suffers  not  only  from 
the  loss  on  his  contract,  but  from  the  consequent  increased  duty.  This 
applies  only  to  the  American  importer,  as  foreign  agents  can  import  on 
consignment  account  at  value  at  time  of  shipment. 

In  the  average  fluctuations  of  trade  the  times  of  decline  about  equal 
those  of  advance,  so  that  American  importers  in  regular  business  are 
unfairly  handicapped. 

Prices  of  manufactured  goods  are  affected  by  so  many  shifting  con- 
ditions that  it  is  not  possible  to  arrive  at  what  is  market  value.  The 
quantity  purchased,  the  time  of  delivery,  the  proportion  of  certain  kinds 
or  sizes  more  profitable  to  make  than  others,  the  competition  in  the 
market  to  which  the  goods  are  to  go,  or  the  using  up  of  accumulated 
raw  material,  all  go  into  the  bargain  made,  and  the  nominal  prices 
asked  by  parties  holding  small  lots  of  like  goods  do  not  give  a fair 
standard  of  purchasing  value. 

Consular  certificates. — On  all  goods  with  specific  duty  these  consular 
certificates  are  useless,  except  as  confirming  weights  and  for  statistics. 
Both  of  these  ends  could  be  better  accomplished  on  arrival  of  goods 
here. 

In  the  present  rapid  movement  of  goods  by  steamers,  which  load  and 
unload  in  a few  hours,  the  necessity  of  preparing  triple  invoices  and 
attending  at  consuls’  offices  at  special  hours,  often  causes  the  losing  of 
important  mails,  involves  the  necessity  of  principals  or  authorized 
agents  remaining  always  in  the  cities  where  offices  are  located,  aud 
causes  the  most  onerous  and  vexatious  delays  and  large  expense,  with- 
out any  advantage  to  the  Government. 

We  believe  no  other  Government  imposes  so  heavy  and  burdensome 
a tax  upon  those  who  are  so  unfortunate  as  to  be  engaged  in  foreign 
business. 

We  trust  some  modification  can  be  made  in  the  law  requiring  princi- 
pals themselves  to  attend  at  custom-houses  to  make  oaths  as  to  in- 
voices. 

This  is  a most  onerous  tax  upon  time  in  many  cases;  aud  if  the 
owner’s  oath  is  necessary,  it  should  be  allowed  to  be  taken  before 
notaries  duly  authorized. 

We  fully  understand  the  wisdom  and  necessity  of  every  proper  and 
effective  precaution  in  collecting  the  revenue;  but  there  are  still  many 
checks,  delays,  small  fees,  and  expenses  to  importers,  the  result  of  an- 
tiquated laws  and  old  usages,  which  greatly  embarrass  the  transaction 
of  business  and  delay  the  officers  of  the  Government  as  well  as  the  mer- 
chants. 

These  add  unnecessarily  to  the  cost  of  all  the  imported  articles  used 
by  the  entire  people,  and  add  so  much  additional  weight  to  our  country 
in  its  industrial  competition  with  the  rest  of  the  world. 

In  the  thoughtful  examination  you  are  giving  to  the  whole  revenue 
service,  we  trust  you  will  carefully  consider  these  matters. 

We  are,  dear  sir,  with  great  respect,  very  truly  yours, 

PHELPS,  DODGE  & CO. 


Tin  plates,  terne  plates,  taggers  tin.  ( Duty  specific,  1 cent  per  pound.) 

[Paragraph  151,  Schedule  C,  act  of  March  3,1883.] 

These  articles  form  the*raw  material  of  more  widely  spread  and  diversified  indus- 
tries than  almost  anything  imported,  and  the  rate  of  duty,  now  equal  to  30  per  cent* 
ad  valorem,  is  a very  oppressive  one. 


382  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Daring  war  times  tlie  rate  was  only  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  In  1872  it  was  changed 
to  15  per  cent.,  and  in  1874  to  15  per  cent,  less  10  per  cent. 

When  the  change  was  made  to  specific  it  was  intended  to  make  a rate  per  pound 
about  equal  to  the  then  ad  valorem  duty. 

The  great  improvements  and  cheapening  of  cost  of  manufacture  have  so  reduced 
price  that  present  rate  is  equal  to  30  per  cent.,  and  far  beyond  anything  intended. 

A duty  of  one-half  cent  per  pound  would  be  fully  equal  to  former  ad  valorem  rate. 

From  these  goods  are  manufactured  the  kitchen  utensils  and  the  stove  and  house- 
hold furniture  of  the  whole  country  and  the  camp  outfit  of  miners  and  lumbermen. 
They  are  made  into  roofs  and  gutters  of  houses,  and  used  for  cans  and  boxes  for  the 
packing  of  spices,  chemicals,  lard,  petroleum,  fish,  vegetables,  oysters,  and  condensed 
milk. 

During  the  last  ten  years  the  packing  in  cans  made  of  tin  plate  of  fruits,  vegetables, 
and  fish  has  developed  in  every  section  of  the  country,  giving  to  the  farmer  and  to 
the  fisherman  an  opportunity  to  build  up  a business  in  the  cheap  food  used  in  all  house- 
holds and  by  all  workingmen. 

Sheet  iron  or  steel,  polished  or  glanced.  ( Duty  specific,  2%  cents  per  pound. ) 

[Paragraph  152,  Schedule  C,  act  March  3,  1883.] 

This  affects,  in  fact,  only  the  polished  sheet  iron  imported  from  Russia  and  com- 
mercially known  as  “ Russia  sheet  iron.”  The  rate  is  an  enormous  one,  equal  to  36  to 
40  per  cent,  of  its  value.  It  is  used  almost  entirely  by  people  in  moderate  circum- 
stances for  stoves  and  by  locomotive  builders. 

This  great  tax  benefits  only  one  manufacturer,  with  a limited  number  of  employes 
and  is  most  oppressive  and  extreme. 

This  duty  shoul  d not  exceed  1 cent  per  pound. 

Ordinary  sheet  iron. 

[Paragraph  152,  Schedule  C,  act  March  3,  1883.] 

Duty  ranges  from  1.1  to  1.5  cents  per  pound;  is  equal  to  50  per  cent,  of  foreign  valuo 
and  virtually  prohibitory. 

Zinc  in  blocks  or  pigs,  commercially  known  as  spelter.  ( Duty  specific,  1£  cents  per  pound.) 

[Schedule  C,  act  March  3,  1883.] 

This  forms,  with  copper,  the  basis  of  brass.  The  rate  of  duty  is  about  equal  to  40 
per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and,  with  the  large  use  of  brass  for  common  purposes,  is  very 
extreme. 

Sheet  zinc.  ( Duty  specific,  2-£  cents  per  pound.) 

[Schedule  C,  act  March  3,  1883.] 

This  is  equal  to  65  to  70  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  This  extreme  tax  benefits  only  two 
manufacturers,  and  the  loss  falls  almost  entirely  upon  people  of  moderate  means,  its 
principal  use  being  for  use  under  cheap  stoves. 

Black  taggers  iron. 

[Paragraph  151,  Schedule  C,  act  March  3, 1883.] 

The  duty  on  this  article,  which  is  now  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  is  most  difficult  to 
appraise  fairly,  as  its  use  is  variable  and  its  manufacture  subject  to  changing  condi- 
tions. It  should  be  made  “ specific,”  and  1 cent  per  pound  would  be  about  equal  to 
present  average  rate.  As  the  only  use  of  this  article  is  as  a raw  material — for  small 
manufacturers  requiring  much  baud  labor — the  rate  is  very  high. 

ltegulus  of  antimony. 

[Schedule  C,  act  March  3, 1883.] 

Duty  10  per  ceut.  ad  valorem.  This  is  a simple  metal,  coming  in  slabs  or  cakes, 
and  should  he  made  “specific.”  About  three  fourths  cent’ per  pound  would  be  equal 
to  present  ad  valorem  rate. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


383 


[Wilkins  Trick,  tinplate.-] 

Maes-ydderwen,  Hubbard,  Ohio, 

Augus  t — , . 

Hon.  Secretary  Manning, 

Treasury  Department , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  In  April  last  I addressed  the  President  on  the  subject  of  a 
sufficient  tariff  protection  to  enable  the  successful  manufacture  of  tin 
plates  in  this  country,  and  for  which  purpose,  being  an  old  and  prac- 
tical iron  and  tin  plate  maker,  I have  located  in  America,  her  natural- 
ized citizen,  and  to  which  communication,  through  his  private  secre- 
tary, Mr.  Lamont,  I had  the  honor  of  a reply  stating  that  the  sug- 
gestions 1 offered  were  read  with  interest  and  would  meet  with  due 
attention. 

With  the  prospect  of  an  amended  tariff  bill  being  introduced  in  next 
Congress,  I am  constrained  to  respectfully  direct  your  attention  to  this 
subject;  and  it  will  be  seen  by  you  that  the  advantages  which  would 
accrue  to  the  state  from  the  establishment  of  a tin-plate  industry  are 
of  paramount  importance  and  worthy  to  engage  the  best  efforts  of  the 
philanthropist,  as  the  means  of  securing  enhanced  measures  of  comfort 
in  the  workman’s  social  life,  in  leveling  up  the  status  of  his  position 
physically  and  intellectually,  and  in  direct  contrast  to  the  foreign 
policy  of  debasement  with  pauper  wages ; together,  also,  with  its  politico- 
economic  aspect,  in  wresting  to  ourselves  all  accessories  conducing  to 
the  stability  and  prosperity  of  the  country  through  her  internal  means 
of  independence,  and  reliance  on  her  resources  to  meet  all  domestic 
requirements;  primarily,  afterwards,  to  become  the  entrepot  of. the 
world  for  tin  plates,  changing  the  venue  of  production  from  a compara- 
tively insignificant  Welsh  patch  of  the  world’s  surface,  possessing  no 
immediate  or  peculiar  advantages  for  the  purpose,  to  our  own  soil. 

America’s  resources  have  been  proven  in  the  past,  and  down  to  the 
present  valuable  discoveries  of  tin  mines  in  Dakota  and  Virginia. 
There  is  absolutely  not  anything  required  incapable  of  being  furnished 
from  the  treasures  of  her  own  laboratory  to  enable  the  manufacture  of 
tin  plates,  and  placing  her  unsubject  to  exotic  production.  That  which 
has  now  to  be  combated  is  the  impracticability  of  profitably  making  the 
article  whilst  maintaining  wage-rates  as  now  ruling  for  similar  class 
work  with  the  present  tariff  protection;  and  certainly,  sir,  from  a 
statesman’s  point  of  view  it  must  be  perfectly  patent  to  yourself 
that  to  reduce  the  skilled  working  population  to  the  wage  platform 
of  continental  nations  denotes  dire  disaster  and  national  retrogres- 
sion. To  dilate  in  extenso  upon  the  benefits  which  would  permeate 
all  classes  and  sections  of  the  community  in  the  establishing  a tin-plate 
industry  by  the  retention  of  capital  at  home,  which  is  now  diverting  to 
foreign  markets  in  purchasing  media,  would  be  a supererogatory  effort 
in  this  place;  therefore  the  quantities  of  material  consumed,  &c.,  I pass 
over  in  addressing  you,  merely  remarking  that  the  latitude  it  embraces 
is  far  wider  in  reality  than  appears  on  the  surface  of  thought. 

A matter  of  serious  importance  to  notice,  and  one  of  the  many  to 
converters  of  tin  plates,  is  defective  plates  arising  out  of  the  inferior 
quality  of  the  goods  largely  sent  into  this  country  and  made  expressly 
for  the  American  market,  the  perpetration  of  which  injury  will  be  pre- 
vented when  the  user  and  the  maker  can  be  brought  into  personal 
contact,  those  plates  only  being  esteemed  which  are  honestly  made, 
and  free  from  the  deleterious  stuff  now  adopted  at  most  factories  as  a 
flux,  by  reason  of  its  cheapness?  in  lieu  of  palm  oil?  and  is  the  cause  to 


384  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

which  cau  be  attributed  cases  of  poisoning  arising  from  the  consumption 
of  food  packed  in  cases  made  from  these  plates.  As  it  rests  at  present 
the  importing-houses  disclaim  all  responsibility,  unless  under  guarantee 
of  specific  grades  and  brands,  for  which  the  buyer  is  unfairly  mulcted 
in  an  extra  price. 

We  can  produce  a better  quality  of  tin  plate  in  America  than  is  now 
being  imported.  The  specious  argument  against  a protective  policy 
advanced  by  our  captious  critics  and  self  interested  opponents  to  the 
manufa  cture  of  tin  plate  resolves  itself  into  the  false  deduction  of  a 
consequent  increased  purchasing  price  extracted  from  the  buyer.  These 
people  claim  that  to  augment  the  protective  duty  and  the  power  of 
paying  decent  wages  to  workmen  is  the  imposition  of  an  injustice  to 
the  converter  of  plates  in  inflated  values,  which  must  necessarily  re- 
bound on  the  general  consumer  of  their  products.  This  at  first  sight 
would  appear  to  be  the  natural  result,  but  unfortunately  for  their  prem- 
ises it  is  chimerical;  and  let  me  therefore  at  once  seek  to  dispel  its 
lodgment  in  a reflective  and  impartial  mind,  and  I cannot  proceed  in 
a more  conclusive  manner  than  submitting  to  the  arbitrament  of  facts 
and  figures  as  nearly  as  can  be  obtained. 

The  American  Commission  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  considering 
the  question  of  import  duty  recommended  a tariff  of  2-^-  cents  a pound, 
being  1 cents  iucrease  on  the  present  duty  of  1 cent  per  pound. 
Now  the  quantity  imported  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 1884,  we 
find  to  be,  as  given  in  the  statistics  furnished  by  the  American  Tinned 
Plate  Association  and  copied  by  the  press,  as  507,894,750  pounds,  or 
equivalent  to  4,702,729  boxes  of  I.  C.  substance  tin  plates,  weighing 
108  per  box.  The  consumer  has  paid  for  these  tin  plates,  according  to 
the  statement  furnished,  a sum  of  $30,000,000,  or  $0.38  average  per  box 
(which  would  appear  to  be  correct,  taking  the  average  selling  price  for 
all  descriptions  extending  over  this  period).. 


Then  the  value  of  these  at  prime  cost  in  Liverpool  is  given  at $18, 182,637 

Or  $3.87  per  box  average  for  charcoals  and  coles.  To  this  add  the  amount 
of  tariff  duty  sought  by  the  commission  of  2.2  cents  per  pound  on  the 
imported  quantity  as  given  above 11, 173, 684 


29  356  321 

Or  $0.24  per  box,  being  the  difference  of  $643,079,  which  is  equiva- 
lent to  14  cents  per  box  alreadg  paid  by  the  consumer  in  excess  of  the  tariff 
sought  to  be  obtained  by  the  commission  for  the  protection  of  the  industry.  . 

Again : 

The  consumer  pays  for  his  plates  a sum  of $30,  000, 000 

The  prime  cost  of  which  in  Liverpool  is $18, 182,637  00 

The  present  duty  on  which  at  1 cent  per  pound  is 5,078,947  56 

23,261,584 

A difference  of 6,738,416 

The  ocean  carriage  on  these  plates,  with  insurance,  can  be  taken  at 
12  cents  a box,  leaving  the  balance  of  this  $6,738,416  to  the  merchants, 
brokers,  and  jobbers,  for  expenses  and  profits,  the  former  maintaining 
extensive  establishments  in  Liverpool  and  Loudon,  with  their  staffs  of 
clerks  and  dependents,  together  with  their  sister  houses  in  New  York 
and  Philadelphia,  &c.,  all  of  which  the  consumer  supports  to  the  direct 
detriment  of  a home  production,  and,  after  all,  often  obtaining  goods  de- 
fective in  quality,  unsuitable  in  finish,  and  faulty  in  specification.  1 
am  esteemed  in  Wales  an  expert  in  accountantship,  and  fully  acquainted 
from  most  extended  experiences  with  minute  details  of  manufacturing 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  385 

cost  accounts,  so  that  which  I have  to  advance  on  this  head  of  the  sub- 
ject may  therefore  be  accepted  ex  cathedra. 

For  the  last  two  years  I have  been  engaged  in  compiling  information, 
with  the  result  of  having  perfected  a series  of  manufacturing  costs  on 
tin  plate  in  this  country,  framed  on  the  bases  of  American  rates  of  wages, 
interest  on  capital,  and  other  cognate  matters  appertaining  to  accurate 
cost  accounts,  and  from  which  I am  prepared  to  demonstrate  the  neces- 
sity of  a further  protection  to  an  extent  that  shall  inflict  injury  or  in- 
justice on  no  one,  but  benefit  all  in  enabling  the  industry  to  be  success- 
fully inaugurated  and  permanently  planted  with  us;  and  I respectfully 
suggest,  sir,  that  to  effect  this  purpose  a graduated  revision  of  the  ex- 
isting tariff  may  with  propriety  be  adopted,  instead  of  the  existing 
duty  of  a cent  a pound,  which  is  exacted  upon  the  superior  quality  and 
finished  tin-plate  equally  with  the  lowest  grades,  and  whereon  the  cost 
of  production  and  merchantable  values  differ,  submitting  for  your  care- 
ful consideration  the  following  graduation  as  meeting  all  the  require- 
ments of  the  case : 

Cents. 

The  duty  on  imported  coke-iron  T plates  to  he per  pound. . If 

The  duty  on  oharcoal-iron  and  steel  T.  plates  to  be  (together  with  all  their  trade 

sizes  and  crosses  duly  tinned) per  pound.. 

On  outsize  tin-plates  and  their  crosses do 2$ 

On  tin  taggers,  both  iron  and  steel do 2\ 

I am  disposed  to  supplement  this  letter  with  a few  observations  upon 
the  conditions  which  would  inevitably  follow  an  introduction  of  a free- 
trade  policy  on  tin-plates  in  this  country.  Consumers  would  be  placed 
under  the  dire  necessity  of  taking  any  description  of  plate  which  could 
be  most  advantageously  made  with  regard  to  the  greatest  margin  of 
profit,  without  manufacturers  entertaining  the  least  consideration  in 
filling  their  specific  wants ; as  it  is  at  present,  most  tin-plates  have  to  be 
reassorted  before  being  used,  and  large  quantities  are  cast  aside  as 
unfitted  for  the  particular  purposes  intended,  with  the  consequent  loss 
entailed  upon  the  user,  and  for  which  he  is  utterly  powerless  in  obtain- 
ing redress ; the  purchasing  price  of  a box  of  these  plates  does  not 
therefore  represent  its  actual  cost,  the  value  of  the  article  being  con- 
siderably increased  by  the  rejection  of  a large  percentage  of  the  plates 
from  this  reason.  The  introduction  of  this  industry  being  of  such  vast 
national  importance,  it  becomes  most  essential  to  institute  a complete 
and  exhaustive  inquiry  into  the  amount  of  tariff  necessary  for  its  legiti- 
mate culture  and  support  against  foreign  importation,  and  which  must 
be  considered  from  an  independent  aud  non-partisan  standpoint ; per- 
fectly free  from  bias,  and  abrogating  the  possibilities  of  creating  monop- 
olies and  syndicates  to  the  detriment  of  the  general  weal  in  its  in- 
stitution— a tariff  perfected  in  honesty  of  purpose,  fearlessly  and 
righteously  determined.  And  to  this  consummation,  I,  sir,  and  those 
with  me,  confidently  repose  our  implicit  trust  in  the  President  aud 
yourself. 

If  my  assistance  would  be  deemed  of  advantage  in  the  consideration 
of  this  subject,  together  with  any  data  I can  furnish  bearing  upon  the 
experiences  of  to  day  in  Welch  tin  plate  making,  and  American  costs 
for  the  production  of  the  article,  &e.,  they  are  respectfully  at  your  dis- 
posal, and  1 have  the  honor  to  remain,  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

WILKINS  THICK, 

Patentee  and  Tin-Plate  Manufacturer , and  late  Hon.  Secretary  of  the 
South  Wales  Masters Tin-Plate  Association,  England. 

S.  Ex.  72 25 


386  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[Hall  & Carpenter,  tinplate  and  metals . ] 

Philadelphia,  July  29,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  24th  instant  we  would 
say  that  an  experience  of  many  years  has  taught  us  that  a specific  duty 
is  decidedly  to  be  preferred  to  that  of  an  ad  valorem. 

Not  only  to  prevent  undervaluation,  but  also  to  obviate,  in  a large 
measure,  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  their  correct  value  at  the  time 
and  place  of  shipment. 

The  merchandise  we  have  imported  has  been  almost  exclusively  tin 
and  terne  plates,  which  formerly  paid  an  ad  valorem  but  now  a specific 
duty. 

The  change  has  been  so  beneficial  that  we  should  regret  exceedingly 
to  have  to  return  to  an  ad  valorem  duty. 

Respectfully, 

HALL  & CARPENTER. 


[The  American  Tinned  Plate  Association,  tin  plate.'] 

Pittsburgh,  August  — , 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , Z>.  G\ : 

Dear  Sir:  The  course  you  are  pursuing  in  seeking  information,  the 
possession  of  which  will  enable  you  to  advocate  an  intelligent  simplifi- 
cation of  the  tariff,  in  substituting  specific  for  ad  valorem  duties,  &c., 
is  very  commendable. 

There  can  be  no  just  reason  why  all  duties  on  imported  articles 
should  not  be  specific,  wherever  possible  of  application.  With  clear, 
apt,  and  distinct  descriptions  and  classification  of  the  merchandise,  and 
specific  duties  thereon,  fraud,  or  evasion  of  the  law,  would  be  almost 
impossible.  I think,  too,  that  the  tariff  laws  should  be  so  amended  as 
to  make  the  punishment  of  offenders  speedy,  prompt,  and  sure. 

My  affiliations  with  the  tariff  are  those  of  a workingman,  and  as  such 
I am  much  interested  in  the  practical  methods  you  have  adopted  of 
arriving  at  facts . Workingmen,  as  you  know,  place  but  little  confi- 
dence in  anything  attempted,  based  on  the  theoretic  phenomena  of 
this  subject,  or  indeed  any  other  subject,  but  prefer  rather  to  deal  with 
facts,  or  things  as  they  find  them.  The  depressed  condition  of  trade, 
together  with  the  great  changes  wrought  by  which  mechanical  labor  is 
fast  taking  the  place  of  manual  labor  of  late  years,  and  the  consequent 
increasing  surplus  of  idle  labor,  is  now  becoming  a very  serious  ques- 
tion. It  is  to  be  observed  that  mechanical  appliances  and  special  tools 
are  being  applied  much  more  extensively  and  rapidly  in  manufactures 
than  in  agricultural  and  raw-materials  production,  hence  onr  oiirplus 
labor  is  mainly  that  of  manufactures.  Can  we  find  any  way  in  which 
to  find  employment  for  this  surplus  labor?  Some  say,  yes,  by  our  work 
ingmen  going  and  settling  on  farms.  This,  however,  would  be  only  a 
partial  remedy,  for  even  as  it  now  is  we  have  a surplus  of  agricultural 
products  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  home  and  foreign  markets.  Others 
say  that  our  surplus  labor  can  be  employed  by  an  extension  of  indus- 
tries in  manufactures,  that  is  home  production  of  what  we  are  now 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  387 

importing  in  the  form  of  manufactured  articles.  This  is  the  view  gen- 
erally prevailing  among  the  workingmen  of  our  country. 

I will  not,  however,  intrude  upon  your  valuable  time  in  discussing 
this  question  in  a letter  like  this,  but  shall  hold  myself  in  readiness,  at 
your  pleasure,  should  you  desire  it,  to  present  our  arguments  iu  detail 
for  your  consideration.  For  the  present  1 simply  lay  the  statement  be- 
fore you. 

As  an  advocate  of  an  extension  of  diversified  industry,  I represent 
that  of  tin  and  terne  plate  and  taggers’  tin  manufacture,  now  nil  in 
the  United  States.  The  causes  for  this  are  explained  in  a pamphlet  1 
have  prepared,  a copy  of  which  I forward  you  with  this  letter.  We  are 
now,  and  have  been  for  several  years,  endeavoring  to  have  the  duty  on 
tin  plates,  &c.,  made  consistent  with  that  of  most  other  articles  in  the 
metal  schedule.  It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  this  industry  should 
be  discriminated  against,  as  it  is  one  representing  the  highest  and  most 
intelligent  workers  in  iron  and  steel,  and,  singular  as  it  may  appear,  the 
only  industry  in  England  and  Wales  that  have  increased  iu  product 
during  the  depression  of  the  iastfew  years;  in  brief,  it  is  the  only  pros- 
perous industry  in  iron  and  steel  in  that  country.  %ke  United  States 
is  the  largest  consumer  of  tinplates  iu  the  world.  We  consume  nearly 
two-thirds  of  the  world’s  production  in  tin  plates.  It  is  the  largest  ar- 
ticle in  our  list  of  importations  in  iron  and  steel.  If  we  add  tb  it 
our  importations  in  sheets,  including  taggers’  iron,  articles  of  precisely 
the  same  line  of  manufacture,  it  would  be  just  one-half  of  our  imports 
in  iron  and  steel  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1884'. 

It  needs  no  argument  to  show  that  home  production  of  these  articles, 
in  the  employment  given  to  labor  and  capital,  would  be  of  incalculable 
relief  and  benefit  to  our  iron  and  steel  industry  iu  their  present  de- 
pressed condition.  To  do  this  we  must  have  a protective  duty  on  tin 
plates  adequate  to  the  higher  wages  that  must  necessarily  be  paid  in 
this  country  above  those  now  paid  iu  England  and  Wales. 

This  duty  must  be  in  harmony  with  those  now  existing,  which  are  of 
a protective  character.  To  form  an  accurate  idea  of  the  extent  of  duty 
needed  I will  briefly  state  the  process  of  manufacture,  dealing  with  the 
subject  from  the  bar  iron  or  steel  to  the  finished  plates.  In  the  first 
place  we  have  the  bar  iron,  sheared  in  pieces  about  fifteen  inches  long. 
These  pieces  are  put  in  charges  into  a reverberatory  furnace,  heated  to 
a bright  red,  put  through  the  chilled  rolls,  and  rolled  thick  five  times ; 
reheated  and  rolled  in  singles  twice;  doubled,  reheated,  and  rolled 
three  times;  doubled,  reheated,  and  rolled  twice;  doubled,  reheated, 
and  rolled  in  eighths  twice,  until  they  are  stretched  to  the  required 
length  and  thickness.  They  are  then  sheared,  then  opened,  and  then 
put  through  the  process  of  black  pickling,  i.  e.,  immersed  iu  heated  di- 
lute sulphuric  acid.  The  sheets  are  next  annealed  for  from  twelve  to 
twenty-four  hours.  After  this  they  are  cold  rolled,  so  as  to  give  the 
plates  a perfectly  flat  set  and  well  polished  surface;  they  are  then  an- 
nealed and  pickled  the  second  time,  then  scoured  with  sand.  They 
are  uow  ready  for  the  tin-house.  The  tinmen  now  pass  the  sheets 
through  a grease  pot,  then  through  a pot  of  molten  tin  covered  with 
palm  oil.  They  next  pass  to  the  washmen,  who  pass  them  through 
another  pot  of  molten  tin,  then  through  rolls,  after  which  they  are 
rubbed  clean,  assorted,  and  boxed.  This  brief  statement  shows  clearly 
that  tin  plates  are  a very  far  advanced  manufacture  in  iron  and  steel 

The  cost  of  production  of  tin  plates  in  this  country  would,  of  course, 
depend  upon  location  of  manufacturing  establishment,  varying  accord- 
ing to  conditions  and  advantages.  But  as  we  do  not  now  manufacture 


388  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


any  tin  plates  whatever,  it  is  imposible  to  give  an  accurate  statement  of 
costs.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  I attempt  to  give  an  estimated  cost,  for 
I have  no  doubt  you  have  received  costs  of  production  of  ordinary  iron 
or  steel  bars.  Tin  plates  are  sheets  rolled  out  of  bars  of  about  7 inches 
by  § inch.  I will,  therefore,  consider  the  item  of  wages  and  costs  on 
this  occasion  from  the  bars  (generally  called  tin  bars)  to  the  finished 
plates.  I give  wages  as  now  paid  in  England  and  Wales.  Those  for 
United  States  are  in  accordance  with  the  scales  of  the  Amalgamated 
Association,  and  in  such  cases  as  the  association  prices  do  not  provide 
for  I have  entered  estimated  wages,  based  on  that  class  of  labor  nearest 
approximative  to  that  of  tin  plate  manufacture: 


Occupation. 


Rolling 

Doubling 

Furnaceman 

Catcher 

Shearer  

Weighing 

Roll-turning 

Pickling 

Cold-rolling 

Catching 

Opening 

Annealing 

Helper 

Tinman 

W ashman 

Cradler 

Boxor  

Assorter 

Lighting  fires 

Engineer 

Fitter  

Carpenter 

Smith 

Striker 

Mason 

Laboring 

Tin-houso  manager 
Mill  manager 


Unit  of  work. 


W ages. 


Per  100  boxes . 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Per  week 

Per  100  boxes. 

do 

do 

do 

Per  week 

do 

do 

Per  day 

do 

do 

. do 

do 

do 

Per  week 

do 


Included  in  rolling. 


t Included  in  annealing. 


would  be  done  by  young  men  and  boys  in  this  country, 
work  is  very  hard  and  rough : 


Occupation. 


Unit  of  work. 


Openers j Per  100  boxes 

Pickorsoff j Per  day 

Scourers do 

Dippers j do 

Dusters do 

Carriers do 

Reclosers do 


England 

and 

Wales. 

United 

States. 

$6  87 

$23  00 

5 51 

11  05 

5 20 

10  10 

3 02 

(*) 

2 17 

11  00 

48 

1 08 

48 

l 34 

1 46 

4 25 

1 21 

3 60 

20 

56 

18$ 

50 

2 43 

10  25 

(t) 

6 00 

"1200 

6 00 

12  00 

2 00 

5 00 

1 01 

2 40 

9 72 

18  60 

4 38 

9 00 

G 00 

12  00 

1 52 

2 75 

97 

2 25 

1 52 

3 00 

73 

1 25 

1 52 
62 

3 00 
1 12$ 

14  50  | 

25  00 

15  79 

12,  000  00 

JPer  year. 

most  of  which 

Some  of  the 

Wages. 

1 

England 

and 

j Wales. 

United 

States. 

$1  65 

$3  50 

48 

75 

48 

75 

48 

1 00 

36 

75 

24 

50 

48 

1 00 

According  to  these  figures  the  amount  of  wages  paid  per  box  in 
England  and  Wales  would  be  about  G2  cents  and  in  the  United  States 
about  $1.87  per  box — an  excess  of  $1.25  per  box.  You  will  thus  see 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


389 


tliat  adding  the  duty  per  pouud  on  bars  to  this  excess  in  wages  would 
be  nearly  2J  cents  per  pouud.  A box  weighs  108  pounds — i.  e.,  14  x 20 — 
112  sheets. 

This  ought  to  make  it  clear  that  the  duty  on  tin  plates,  to  be  consist- 
ent with  that  of  bars,  based  on  a difference  in  wages  only , should  be  at 
least  2J  cents  per  pound;  but  to  cover  all  exigencies  we  claim  a duty 
of  2J  cents  per  pound.  Such  a duty  would  be  fully  protective,  and  make 
it  absolutely  safe  for  capital  to  invest  in  the  manufacture  of  tin  plates. 

The  greatest  obstacle  for  us  to  overcome  is  the  idea  prevailing  that 
an  advance  in  the  duty  would  entail  a corresponding  advance  in  the 
; price  of  tin  plates.  Such  an  idea  as  this  is  based  solely  on  the  expect- 
ancy that  with  the  higher  duty  we  would  still  be  dependent  upon  Eng- 
land for  our  supply  of  tin  plates;  it  precludes  altogether  the  idea  of 
home  manufacture.  It  would  be  folly  on  our  part  to  advocate  a pro- 
tective duty,  or  indeed  any  duty  at  all,  under  existing  circumstances, 
unless  we  anticipated  home  production  of  tin  plates.  The  fact  that  we 
have  no  tin-plate  manufacture  at  all  at  the  present  time,  and,  again,  that 
the  duty  on  tin  plates  is  inconsistent  and  inadequate  as  compared  with 
other  articles  of  iron  and  steel,  is  plainly  the  cause  of  this.  No  strouger 
evidence  is  wanted  to  show  the  need  of  a higher  duty.  With  a duty 
such  as  I have  mentioned  home  production  would  spring  into  life,  and 
shortly  afterward  home  competition  would  control  the  price  of  tin 
plates. 

I,  therefore,  earnestly  petition  you  to  give  this  subject  serious  thought 
and  attention.  It  is  certain  that  the  wheels  of  industry  cannot  be  put  in 
active  motion,  only  by  finding  employment  for  idle  labor.  This  again 
cannot  be  done  but  by  opening  up  new  industry.  Hoping  you  can 
favorably  consider  this  very  important  question, 

I am,  respectfully,  yours, 

JOHN  JARRETT, 

Secretary . 


[Gummey,  Spering,  Iugram  & Co.,  tinplate .] 

Philadelphia,  July  27, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning-, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C.: 

Dear  Sir:  We  are  in  receipt  of  your  communication  of  the  24th  in- 
stant in  reference  to  the  tariff  and  the  suggested  changes. 

The  principal  items  of  importation  in  our  line  are  tin  plates,  terne 
plates,  taggers  tin,  which  were  for  many  years  admitted  on  ad  valorem 
rates,  which  varied  materially  at  different  times,  until  the  abuse  of  this 
method  became  so  glaring  as  to  compel  the  Department  to  call  the 
attention  of  Congress  to  alter  the  same  and  to  insist  upon  u specific 
rates,”  and  as  a result  the  subsequent  tariff  made  the  rate  l^  cents 
per  pound,  which  rate  continued  up  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1883,  when  the  rate  was  reduced  to  1 cent  per  pound;  and  this 
plan  of  fixing  the  rate  is  really  the  only  equitable  one  that  could  be 
adopted,  and  in  our  line  it  has  worked  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  the 
merchants  as  well  as  the  Government,  while  it  has  reduced  the  oppor- 
tunity of  defrauding  the  Government  to  the  smallest  possible  chance. 

If  the  importer  intended  to  defraud  the  Government  it  could  only  be 
accomplished  by  collusion  with  dishonest  officials,  as  the  weights  of 
boxes  of  tin  plates  of  the  same  size  and  gauge  are  uniformly  the  same. 
There  is  one  objection  to  the  present  tariff  rate  on  tin  plates,  terne 


390 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


plates,  and  taggers  tin,  and  that  is  that  the  rate  is  exces  ive  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  all  these  goods  are  imported  and  none  manufactured  in 
this  country,  as  you  will  see  by  recent  investigation  made  by  Special 
Agent  Hines,  fully  set  forth  as  part  of  his  report  contained  on  file  in 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury’s  Office,  which  dates  December  11,  1884. 

Tin  plate  is  an  article  extensively  consumed  in  this  country  in  many 
branches  of  the  manufacturing  industries,  prominent  among  which  are 
the  large  dairy  interests,  the  canned  goods’  interests,  shipment  of  pe- 
troleum, lard,  &c.,  who  are  obliged  to  pay  on  this  material  an  equiva- 
lent of  over  35  per  cent,  the  present  rate ; and  in  this  connection  we 
would  suggest  the  propriety  of  a reduction  of  the  specific  rate  of  duty 
on  tin  plates,  terne  plates,  and  taggers  tin,  to  at  least  f cents  per  pound, 
which  would  still  further  increase  the  consumption  and  virtually  in- 
crease the  Government  revenues  from  this  source,  as  well  as  being 
more  equitable  to  all  consumers.  The  increased  consumption  would 
result  from  being  enabled  to  use  this  material  for  purposes  from  which 
at  the  present  rate  it  is  debarred. 

Permit  us  to  congratulate  you  upon  the  most  excellent  and  complete 
method  which  you  have  adopted  for  obtaining  information  which  will 
prove  invaluable  to  you  in  dealing  with  this  most  difficult  subject. 
Your  letter  certainly  exhibits  a clear  business  comprehension  of  the 
matter  which  is  alike  creditable  to  yourself  and  valuable  to  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  you  have  adopted  the  only  true  and  practicable  method 
of  ascertaining  the  truth. 

Truly,  yours,  &c., 

GUMMEY,  SPERING,  INGRAM  & CO. 


[The  McCullough  Iron  Company,  sheet  iron  and  taggers  iron.] 

Philadelphia,  August  29, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Mannings  : 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C\: 

Dear  Sir:  Replying  to  your  circular  of  August  8,  in  reference  to  the 
tariff,  we  are  very  glad  to  be  afforded  a hearing  upon  the  subject,  and 
we  take  up  that  portion  of  it  first  in  which  we  are  directly  interested, 
viz,  the  tariff  upon  sheet  iron. 

The  present  law  places  a duty  on  sheet  iron  as  follows : 

Cents  per  pound. 


Not  thinner  than  No.  20  wire-gauge 1.1 

Nos.  21  to  25  wire-gauge 1.2 

Nos.  26  to  29  wire-gauge 1.5 


Thinner  than  No.  29  (taggers),  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  (about  1 cent  per  pound). 

Here  is  a palpable  instance  of  the  very  thing  at  which  your.circular 
appears  to  be  aimed,  i.  e.y  an  ad  valorem  duty  that  is  fatal  to  a home 
industry,  injurious  to  kindred  branches  of  manufacture,  and  «a  source 
of  fraud  against  the  revenue  of  the  United  States.  The  duty  of  30  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  on  taggers  iron,  on  a true  valuation,  is  never  more  than 
1 cent  per  pound,  and  in  general  does  not  amount  to  more  than  three- 
fourths  of  a cent  per  pound.  Advices  from  Liverpool,  freshly  received, 
show  the  actual  present  equivalent  of  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  this 
article  varies  from  02  to  87  cents  per  100  pounds.  This  prohibits  the 
profitable  manufacture  in  the  United  States  of  sheet  or  taggers  iron 
thinner  than  No.  29  wire  gauge.  It  acts  injuriously  upon  the  sheet-iron 
manufacturers  here,  because  it  enables  foreign  taggers  iron  to  be  sold  at 
a less  price  than  the  lighter  gauges  of  sheet  iron,  thus  taking  the  place 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF 


391 


of  American  iron,  which  would  have  been  used  for  the  same  purposes  if 
the  tariff  were  equably  adjusted,  and  if  a proportionate  specific  duty 
were  placed  upon  taggers  iron,  instead  of  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  only  30 
per  cent.  We  mean  a rate  proportionate  to  that  upon  sheet  irou  of 
heavier  gauges. 

This  ad  valorem  duty  affords  au  opportunity  for  the  improper  impor- 
tation, under  the  guise  of  taggers,  of  sheet  iron,  even  as  heavy  as  No.  26, 
cut  into  small  sheets  and  boxed  like  taggers,  thus  paying  only  30  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  or  less  than  1 cent  per  pound,  instead  of  1J  cents,  t Lie 
proper  duty.  This  was  done  quite  extensively  at  one  time. 

The  most  serious  injury  occurs  from  the  importation  of  No.  30  sheet 
iron,  which  is  classified  as  taggers  iron,  but  should  properly  be  classed 
as  sheet  iron.  It  can  be  sold  at  such  a low  juice,  owing  to  the  insuffi- 
cient duty,  that  it  supplants  our  own  iron  to  a most  hurtful  extent. 
This  No.  30  iron  is  not  taggers  iron  in  reality,  although  classed  as  such, 
but  it  is  practically  sheet  iron,  and  should  pay  duty  as  sheet  iron.  The 
difference  between  No.  29  (the  lightest  gauge  classed  as  sheet  iron)  and 
No.  30  taggers  is  indistinguishable  to  the  unaided  eye.  Both  are  rolled 
iu  the  same  way,  and  may  be  used  for  identical  purposes,  and  yet  tins 
No.  30  is  admitted  at  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  or  1 cent,  per  pound  at 
the  utmost,  while  the  American  makers  of  No.  29  sheet  iron  can  barely 
protect  themselves  in  its  manufacture  with  a duty  of  1 J cents  j>er  jiound. 

Moreover,  the  inequality  in  the  rates  for  sheet  iron  is  so  great  that 
they  become  an  absurdity  in  respect  to  taggers,  which  will  at  a glance 
be  seen  to  be  utterly  disproportionate  to  a fair  basis  from  the  following: 

The  tariff  places  a proper  duty  (albeit  an  insufficient  one)  of  l.L  cents 
per  pound  on  sheet  iron  up  to  No.  20  gauge;  then  an  increased  duty, 
1.2  cents,  on  thinner  gauges  up  to  No.  25,  and  a still  larger  duty,  1.5 
cents,  on  the  still  thinner  gauges  up  to  No.  29  inclusive.  Bear  in  mind 
that  the  cost  of  making  these  irons  increases  directly  with  the  thinness. 
Now  when  it  comes  to  the  thinnest  and  most  costly  of  all,  No.  30  and 
upwards,  or  taggers  iron,  it  gives  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  30  j)er  cent., 
equivalent  to  not  more  than  1 cent  jjer  pound.  So  the  schedule  stands 


thus: 

Cents  per  pound. 

Cheapest  gauge,  No.  20 1.1 

Next  costlier,  No.  25 1.2 

Still  uio^e  costly,  No.  29 1.5 

Most  costly  of  all,  No.  30 1 


It  is  evident  from  this  that  the  low  duty  on  No.  30  and  taggers  iron 
was  not  made  up  from  any  logical  or  reasonable  standpoint,  and  as  it 
now  stands  is  very  much  to  the  detriment  of  the  manufacturers  of  this 
country. 

We  are  here  afforded  an  opportunity  to  simplify  the  tariff  and  correct 
a glaring  inequality  by  changing  this  ad  valorem  rate  to  a specific,  and 
we  beg  to  suggest  that  a proper  schedule  of  rates,  and  one  that  would 
aid  in  affording  relief  to  the  sheet-iron  manufacturers  of  this  country, 
would  be  the  Tariff  Commission’s  recommendation,  which  in  this  re- 
spect was  fair,  reasonable,  and  proportionate,  as  follows: 

Cents  per  pound. 


Not  thinner  than  No.  20  wire-gauge ].3 

No.  2J  to  25  wire-gauge 1.5 

No.  26  to  29  wire- gauge 1.  7 

Thinner  than  No.  29  (taggers) 1.9 


This  is  a just  and  regular  increase  from  the  heaviest  to  the  thiniiest; 
the  cheapest  to  the  costliest. 


392  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

TIN  PLATES. 

The  sheet-iron  manufacturers  of  this  country  are  very  seriously  in- 
terfered with  by  the  low  duty  upon  tin  plates.  Instead  of  1 cent  per 
pound,  as  at  present,  the  duty  should  be  not  less  than  2£  cents  per 
pound.  Then  English  tin  plates  and  tinned  sheets  would  not  supplant 
American  sheet  iron  to  the  extent  they  now  do,  or,  if  tin-plates  were  so 
used,  they  would  be  American  made,  in  the  manufacture  of  which 
American  sheet-iron  makers  could  engage. 

You  will  doubtless  receive  communications  on  this  subject  from  oth- 
ers, and  I will  content  myself  with  saying  that  were  Congress  to  grant 
an  adequate  duty  upon  tin  plates  it  would  do  more  to  enhance  the  pros- 
perity of  the  country  than  any  other  measure  in  that  line  that  I can 
think  of.  If  Americans  could  be  permitted  to  manufacture  the  tin 
plates  used  in  our  own  country  alone,  and  if  the  foreign  monopoly  of 
this  manufacture,  which  the  United  States  Congress  maintains  by 
means  of  the  present  low  duty,  could  be  broken  up,  it  would  develop 
into  prosperous  and  valuable  mines  the  many  tin  bearing  lodes  and 
veins  of  tin  ore  recently  discovered  in  the  West;  it  would  make  a de- 
mand for  hundreds  of  thousands  of  tons  of  iron  ore,  pig  iron,  and  coal 
annually,  which  now  are  all  mined,  smelted,  and  manufactured  in  Eng- 
land, to  the  profit  of  the  English  workman  and  the  English  manufact- 
urer, instead  of  the  American. 

We  remain,  with  much  respect,  your  obedient  servants, 

McCullough  Iron  Company. 

HENKY  WHITELEY, 

Treasurer . 


[The  Eastern  Iron  Ore  Association,  iron  ore.] 

Port  Henry,  IS.  Y.,#  October  31,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  answer  to  your  circular  desiring  information  relative 
to  the  evasion  of  duties,  &c.,  and  the  cost  of  domestic  products,  I have 
to  say,  in  behalf  of  the  Eastern  Iron  Ore  Association,  covering* all  the 
territory  east  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains,  and  producing  over  2,000,000 
tons  of  iron  ore  per  annum,  and  employing  at  least  5,000  men,  that  we 
most  respectfully  protest  against  our  industry  being  placed  upon  the 
free  list,  for  the  following  reasons: 

First.  Because  we  believe  in  the  principles  of  protection  to  all  indus- 
tries, and  it  is  not  right  to  withhold  it  from  any  one  to  benefit  others, 
and  that  the  precedent  of  putting  in  raw  materials  tree  is  sure  to  lead 
to  the  disruption  of  the  entire  protective  fabric.  If  ore  is  placed  there 
this  year,  pig  iron  becomes  a raw  material  for  next  year,  and  so  on. 

Secondly.  The  duty  on  iron  ore  is  a specific  one  and  is  not  thus  sub- 
ject to  undervaluations. 

Thirdly.  The  present  duty  of  seventy-five  cents  is  not  excessive  as 
compared  with  other  industries,  and  it  brings  in  the  ore  so  cheaply  now 
that  few  domestic  ores  can  compete  with  it  over  a large  territory. 

Fourthly.  The  supply  of  native  ores  is  everywhere  abundant,  and  in 
no  instances  are  exorbitant  prices  asked. 

Fifthly.  The  class  of  labor  employed  in  mining  is  of  the  lowest  grade, 
ryul  in  consequence  has  to  come  in  contact  with  the  very  cheapest  labor 
of  Europe  and  Africa,  and  in  no  industry  is  the  disparity  between  home 


Tariff. 


393 


revision  of  Tin; 

and  foreign  labor  greater  or  the  need  of  protection  more  urgent.  A 
domestic  miner  receives  on  the  average  $1.35  per  day,  while  those  of 
Spain  and  Africa,  from  whence  comes  the  larger  amount  of  foreign  ore, 
are  not  above  40  cents  per  day.  The  duty  on  ore  at  75  cents  amounts 
to  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  while  in  this  country  the  miner  is  paid  over 
300  per  cent  more.  It  is  no  small  army  of  honest  men  free  raw  mate- 
rials would  vitally  affect,  while  millions  of  capital  would  be  destroyed. 
The  writer,  therefore,  in  behalf  of  the  Easteru  Iron  Ore  Association, 
would  most  respectfully  urge  upon  you  not  to  advocate  free  raw  mate- 
rials in  your  forthcoming  message  to  Congress. 

Respectfully  yours, 

F.  S.  WITIIERBEE, 
President  Eastern  Iron  Ore  Association. 


[George  H.  , iron  ore.] 

% Cleveland,  Ohio,  October  10,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

i 'Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington,  I).  C.  : 

Sir:  I have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  circular 
letter  of  July  21,  1885,  stating  that  our  tariff  laws  are  now  largely  eva- 
ded by  u undervaluation  whenever  the  duties  are  levied  ad  valorem,’7 
and  asking  my  opinion  “ as  to  the  feasibility  of  simplifying  the  tariff, 
and  making  the  duty  specific  as  far  as  applicable  to  imported  articles 
made  and  produced  in  the  United  States  in  which  I am  interested.” 
Acknowledging  the  courtesy  of  your  suggestion,  I am  glad  to  avail 
myself  of  the  opportunity  which  it  affords  to  convey  the  impressions 
growing  out  of  my  business  experience. 

The  line  of  production  in  which  I am  engaged  is  iron  ore.  This  has 
been  almost  my  exclusive  occupation  for  over  thirty  years,  beginning 
with  the  earliest  development  of  the  iron-ore  region  of  Lake  Superior, 
and  having  been  actively  occupied  in  the  different  departments  of  min- 
ing, transportation,  and  sales  ever  since. 

The  foundations  of  our  American  iron  and  steel  manufactures  rest 
upon  the  fact  of  an  abundant  and  favorably-distributed  supply  of  iron 
ore.  Upon  this  certainty  of  an  adequate  American  supply  of  ore  has 
been  reared  tfre  entire  structure  of  our  iron  and  steel  manufacture,  now 
so  vast  as  to  almost  control  the  industrial  and  financial  conditions  of  our 
national  life,  extending  from  feeble  beginnings  of  the  manufacture  in  a 
few  localities  along  the  Atlantic  coast,  and  when  charcoal  was  the  only 
fuel  for  reduction,  to  a successful  domestication  in  twenty-eight  States 
and  two  Territories. 

In  all  that  magnificent  advance  of  our  iron  and  steel  manufactures 
which  has  made  us  now  in  the  first  century  of  our  national  existence, 
the  second  iron  producer  in  the  world,  iron-ore  production  has  led  the 
way;  nor,  excepting  from  exceptional  and  temporary  caused  has  the 
supply  of  American  ore  ever  proved  to  be  even  temporarily  insufficient. 

Under  such  conditions  only  began  the  importations  of  foreign  ores  iu 
any  quantity  in  1879.  Previous  to  that  time,  so  improbable  was  it  that 
foreign  ores  would  under  any  rate  of  duty  displace  the  American  prod- 
uct, that  they  were  never  even  named  in  the  metal  schedule.  The  rela- 
tions of  other  mine  products  were  duly  defined,  such  as  coal,  building- 
stone,  clay,  &c.,  and  discrimination  made  iu  their  favor.  Iron  ore 


394 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


came  in  under  the  clause,  “All  mineral  and  bituminous  substances  not 
otherwise  provided  for,  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.'” 

It  was  under  this  form  and  rate  of  duty  that  all  imijortations  wTere 
made  down  to  July  1, 1883,  when  the  law  making  the  duty  75  cents  per 
ton  specific  went  into  operation. 

From  1879  to  1883,  2,640,906  tons  were  imported,  principally  from 
Spain  and  Africa,  and  mainly  at  the  ports  of  Baltimore,  Philadelphia, 
and  New  York.  In  August,  1879.  General  Appraiser  Meredith  wrote 
the  Department  on  the  subject  of  irregularities  in  entries  aud  under- 
valuations of  iron  ore.  He  said  : 

The  very  great  difficulty  in  getting  the  true  dutiable  value  at  which  iron  ore  should 
be  entered  consists  in  the  fact  that  they  are  not  bought,  and  sold  in  the  markets  of  the 
countries  from  which  they  are  imported,  and  consequently  they  have  no  commercial 
value.  The  ores  from  Spanish  ports  are  imported  at  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and 
Baltimore  at  the  mere  nominal  price  of  mining,  shipment,  &c. 

Under  this  statement,  the  Department  sent  a special  agent  to  Canada 
for  investigation,  whose  report  confirmed  the  views  of  the  general  ap- 
praiser as  to  the  undervaluation,  and  pointed  to  a change  to  specific 
duty  as  the  remedy. 

Pending  the  work  of  the  Tariff  Commission  of  1882,  the  Iron  and  Steel 
Association  of  the  United  States  called  a convention  September  12  at 
Cresson,  Pa.,  for  conference  upon  the  metal  schedule.  As  to  the  form 
of  the  duty  upon  iron  ore,  it  was  unanimously  agreed  that  it  should  be 
specific;  as  to  the  rate  of  duty,  it  was  at  first,  by  a decided  majority 
vote,  agreed  that  it  should  be  81  per  ton;  subsequently,  by  a unan- 
imous vote,  it  was  agreed  to  recommend  85  cents  per  ton.  Here,  then, 
was  a, distinct,  emphatic,  and  unanimous  expression  from  the  consum- 
ers of  iron  ore  in  favor  of  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem  duties  and  of  a 
rate  of  duty  not  lower  than  85  cents  per  ton.  The  present  rate  of  duty, 
75  cents  per  ton,  is  actually  below  what  was  asked  for  by  iron  and  steel 
manufacturers  of  the  whole  country,  in  the  permanent  interests  of  their 
business. 

It  would  seem  as  if  such  an  adjustment  between  interests  represent- 
ing the  vast  capital's  and  the  armies  of  laborers  engaged  in  the  produc- 
tion and  in  the  use  annually  of  about  8,000,000  tons  of  ore,  and  formu- 
lated into  law,  at  the  head  of  the  metal  schedule,  should  be  allowed  to 
stand;  but  no,  the  capital  employed  in  ore  production  in  Spain,  Africa, 
Cuba,  and  Canada,  and  in  its  transportation  to  our  shores,  asks  for  the 
removal  of  all  duty.  This  demand  is  supported,  also,  here  and  there, 
by  special  and  isolated  manufacturing  interests,  which,  on  grounds  of 
locality  or  other  inadmissible  reasons,  are  seeking  to  separate  them- 
selves from  the  great  body  of  their  co workers  in  iron  and  steel,  and  so 
ignore  the  rights  of  co-ordinate  industries,  and,  in  fact,  to  sacrifice  the 
principle  of  protection  which  is  needed  for  their  own  defense.  Practi- 
cally, then,  it  is  a foreign  and  not  a home  interest  that  asks  for  a change. 

Foreign  ores  entered  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard  are  used  principally 
east  of  the  AUeghanies,  although  to  some  extent  they  are  carried  west 
as  far  as  Johnstown  and  Pittsburgh.  There  they  compete  also  directly 
with  the  ores  of  Western  Pennsylvania  and  Lake  Superior. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  steel  interests  of  Eastern  Pennsylvania  especially 
need  foreign  ores,  in  the  absence  of  an  adequate  supply  of  Bessemer  ores 
within  their  reach.  This  claim,  however,  is  not  wTell  founded. 

In  Lebanon  County,  Pennsylvania,  there  are  immense  deposits  of  valu- 
able ore  low  in  phosphorus.  The  Chateagay  mines,  Franklin  County, 
New  York,  are  low  in  phosphorus,  large  producers  already,  and  unlim- 
ited in  capacity.  In  Putnam  and  Columbia  Counties,  New  York,  and 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  395 

in  Sussex  and  Morris  Counties,  New  Jersey,  are  also  large  deposits  of 
ore  suitable  for  Bessemer  steel. 

Of  New  Jersey  ore  interests,  Prof.  George  H.  Cook,  in  his  annual  re- 
port for  1884,  says: 

The  low  price  of  iron  ore,  and  the  light  demand  for  ore  at  almost  any  figure,  have 
caused  a large  shrinkage  in  the  production  and  closed  many  of  our  mines.  The  large 
and  increasing  importations  of  iron  ore  from  Spain  and  Africa  also  operate  against 
our  mines,  since  these  rich  and  pure  foreign  ores  can  he  put  down  at  the  furnace  near 
the  seaboard  at  lower  rates  per  unit  of  metallic  iron  than  the  New  Jersey  ores  can  be 
profitably  mined  and  shipped  to  these  same  points. 

In  addition  to  these  sources  of  supply  of  Bessemer  ore,  there  are 
mines  in  Virginia  now  being  developed  and  railroad  construction  going 
on  to  bring  their  products  to  market— products,  however,  whose  natural 
market  would  be  usurped  by  Spanish  and  Cuban  ores  were  the  duty 
removed.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  from  these  facts,  that  an  abundance  of 
Bessemer  ore  is  within  the  reach  of  the  steel  makers  of  the  Atlantic 
seaboard.  They  go  to  Spain,  Africa,  and  Cuba  simply  and  only  because 
these  ores  can  be  and  are  laid  down  to  them  at  the  furnace  at  lower 
cost  than  the  home  production  ; and  that  is  possible  because  we  do  not 
ask  or  expect  the  American  laborer  to  accept  the  wages  that  are  paid 
for  mining  in  Spain,  Africa,  and  Cuba,  countries  in  which  wages  are 
the  lowest,  and,  which  necessarily  follows,  where  the  laboring  popula- 
tion is  most  degraded.  This  difference  in  wages  closes  American  mines. 
The  wages  per  day  paid  in  producing  Spanish  ore  is  35  to  45  cents. 
According  to  the  last  reports  from  the  Chateagay  mines,  ordinary 
miners’  and  laborers7  wages  were  from  $1.40  to  $2 ; Mahopac  Iron  Com- 
pany, $1.72;  Cornwall  Mining  Company,  $50  per  month;  Lake  Cham- 
plain mines,  $1.70  per  day.  The  average  of  wages  paid  by  the  Republic 
Iron  Company,  the  Jackson  Iron  Company,  and  the  Lake  Superior  Iron 
Company,  in  the  Marquette  district,  and  employing  1,700  men,  is  $2.08 
per  day.  It  is  obvious  that  our  iron  and  steel  industries  must  rely 
mainly  upon  the  home  production.  Can  it  be  wise  or  just,  through  the 
lowering  or  the  removal  of  the  duty,  to  give  to  the  seaboard  manufacturer 
advantages  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  are  beyond  the  reach  of 
manufacturers  in  the  interior  or  in  the  West? 

It  has  been  stated  that  foreign  ores  aid  iu  utilizing  American 
ores  by  mixing.  The  fact,  however,  is  that  the  reverse  is  the  case. 
Instead  of  foreign  importations  increasing  the  use  of  American  ores, 
they  displace  them ; and  this  is  true  not  only  of  the  Bessemer  ores 
but  those  in  use  for  ordinary  grades  of  pig-iron.  These  facts  were  all 
established  before  the  Tariff  Commission  in  1882.  It  would  seem  as  if 
the  assumption  were  revived  now  only  to  give  plausibility  to  a theory 
of  “ free  raw  materials.77  It  is  assumed  that  if  raw  materials  were  on 
the  free  list  our  manufacturers  in  different  lines  could  produce  at  lower 
cost,  and  cheaper  production  would  of  course  open  to  us  wider  markets. 
The  advocates  of  this  doctrine  do  not  openly  and  directly  propose  to 
bring  about  lower  cost  of  production  by  the  only  means  by  which  it 
can  really  be  attaiued — lower  wages  for  labor — but  they  aim  at  the 
same  result  in  this  indirect  way  by  substituting  the  products  of  foreign 
labor  at  starvation  wages  for  the  products  of  the  American  working- 
man, and  so  depriving  him  of  work  altogether  in  those  industries  af- 
fected. The  appeal  is  made  primarily  to  those  individuals  and  corpo- 
rations whose  business  relates  to  the  conversion  of  the  lowest  forms  of 
crude  materials  into  the  next  highest  form.  If  the  opening  can  be  made 
here,  if  the  makers  of  pig-iron,  bar-iron,  and  steel  rails,  and  of  woolen 
goods,  and  scores  of  other  producers  at  the  base  of  each  of  whose  iu- 


39 6 REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

dustries  is  a material  more  crude  in  form  than  its  finished  product,  can 
be  brought  to  respond  to  this  seductive  but  specious  appeal,  and  thus 
break  down  the  main  defenses  of  our  home  industries,  then  the  enemies 
of  our  American  system  have  won  their  case.  The  remaining  sem- 
blance of  protection  need  be  no  longer  preserved.  Virtual  free  trade 
would  then  have  been  reached  and  its  corollary  follow — direct  taxation 
for  the  support  of  the  Government. 

We  have,  of  course,  industries  whose  crude  materials  must  all  be  im- 
ported which  cannot  or  are  not  advantageously  produced  in  our  own 
country.  Such  materials  do  not  compete  with  home  labor,  and  they 
are,  as  they  should  be,  on  the  free  list.  Duties  upon  foreign  materials 
that  do  compete  are  quite  another  thing.  In  support  of  this  move- 
ment for  u free  raw  materials”  iron  ore  and  wool  are  especially  singled 
out.  A beginning  must  be  made  somewhere  ; Ihere  must  be  materials 
that  are  not  theproductsof  capital  and  labor.  But  is  there  any  such  thing 
as  raw  material?  Are  not  all  our  industries  interlocked  and  interdepend- 
ent ? The  finished  product  of  one  being  the  raw  material  of  another, 
to  the  miner  the  solid  ore,  inert  and  dormant  in  the  heart  of  the 
mountain,  but  absolutely  worthless  without  his  labor  to  bring  it  up  to 
light,  is  raw  material.  To  the  furnace  man  it  is  the  ore  mined  and 
transported  to  his  furnace.  To  the  foundry  man,  and  heater,  and  mill 
roller,  it  is  the  pig-iron,  increased  in  value  by  the  labor  which  has 
brought  it  into  that  form.  So  it  is  along  the  whole  range,  from  the 
ore  unloosened,  unseparated  from  the  infolding  and  inclosing  rock  in 
the  bowels  of  the  earth,  to  the  steel  rail,  the  locomotive,  the  polished 
blade,  and  the  finished  cambric  needle.  There  are  a hundred  manipu- 
lations, and  the  material  has  been  successively  raw  material  to  dif- 
ferent classes  of  manufactures. 

Where,  then,  is  the  line  to  be  drawn  ? Is  the  labor  that  puts  the 
final  touch  upon  the  locomotive,  or  which  watches  the  flying  shuttle 
of  the  loom,  to  be  protected,  and  that  which  lifted  the  ore  into  the 
light,  or  which  raised  the  wmol  on  the  farm,  to  have  no  protection,  but 
on  the  contrary  to  be  subjected  to  destructive  competition  with  the  low- 
est wages  upon  which  human  beings  can  subsist  ? 

But  as  I have  intimated,  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine  insist  upon 
its  application  far  beyond  prime  production.  Imported  at  whatever 
stage  of  manufacture  the  foreign  product  may  be,  if  not  in  condition 
for  actual  use  by  the  consumer,  it  must  be  classified  as  raw  material. 
American  labor  may  be  permitted  to  give  it  the  final  touch.  Nineteen- 
twentieths  of  the  labor  may  have  been  put  upon  the  article  abroad,  still  it  is 
raw  material  of  American  industry,  and  under  the  theory  should  bear  a 
low  rate  of  duty.  The  watch  maybe  imported  complete  except  the  spring, 
the  coat  complete  except  the  button,  the  steel  rail  complete  except  the 
punching,  and  so  on.  The  object  seems  to  be  to  prove  that  a large 
proportion  of  our  imports  are  raw  materials  of  our  home  industries, 
and,  therefore,  do  not  compete  with  them,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
really  an  aid  and  support,  and  on  this  ground  to  secure  a wholesale  re- 
duction of  duties. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  theory  is  specious  and  untenable.  Its  applica- 
tion, as  proposed  in  our  tariff  laws,  would  unwisely  and  unjustly  array 
one  class  of  American  laborers  against  another  class. 

No,  Mr.  Secretary,  these  great  producing  interests  must  all  stand 
upon  a common  level,  enjoying  such  advantages  for  cheap  production 
as  favorable  localities  may  give  to  each,  but  asking  no  discriminations 
in  favor  of  special  local  interests  to  the  injury  of  the  great  body  of  pro- 
ducers in  other  sections  of  the  country. 

I have  stated,  Mr.  Secretary,  that  American  ore  production  is  fully 


REVISION  OE  THE  TARIFF. 


397 


abreast  of  the  wants  of  the  manufacturers.  This,  however,  has  been 
secured  only  through  the  determined  and  persistent  efforts  made  in 
every  part  of  the  country  to  develop  our  mineral  resources. 

The  present  annual  production,  about  eight  million  tons,  has  been 
reached  only  by  enormous  ontlays  of  capital,  over  long  periods  of  time, 
and  with  all  the  risks  involved  in  an  occupation  so  precarious  as 
mining. 

Ithasbeen  said  that  iron  ore  is  ‘‘simply  an  earth,”  having  no  labor  upon 
it  except  that  of  digging  it  out;  but  every  intelligent  man  must  know 
that  large  outlays  of  capital  are  necessary  before  the  laborer  can  begin 
to  dig  out  ore,  and  that  every  step  in  his  process  of  digging  involves 
an  additional  expenditure.  Shafts  must  be  sunk  and  costly  hoisting 
machinery  provided  before  mining  on  an  extensive  scale  can  begin; 
and  once  begun,  every  foot  traversed  requires  expensive  timbering  for 
the  suppo/t  of  the  mine  roof.  This  also  must  be  constantly  kept  in 
repair  and  renewed.  The  cost  of  timbering  alone  in  the  Menominee 
Mining  Company’s  mines  was  stated  by  President  Vandyke,  before  the 
Tariff  Commission,  to  be  one  dollar  per  ton  on  ore  produced.  In  ad- 
dition to  all  this  there  is  the  cost  of  powerful  explosives  and  pumping 
machinery.  All  this*  is  quite  different  from*  simply  “digging  out  an 
earth.” 

Again,  the  capital  invested  in  mining,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  is 
planted  on  that  spot  forever.  There  it  wastes  and  finally  disappears. 
Ore-mining,  too,  is  always  more  or  less  an  experiment.  In  a single 
week  the  ore  may  become  so  mixed  with  rock  as  to  be  worthless,  or  it 
may  be  worked  out  entirely  and  the  pick  of  the  miner  strike  a solid 
wall  of  rock.  But  beyond  the  preparations  for  and  the  cost  and  the 
risk  of  mining  come  the  enormous  cost  of  railroads  and  vessels  built 
solely  for  ore  transportation.  This  capital,  too,  like  that  in  mine  ma- 
chinery and  timbering,  takes  all  the  risk  of  waste  and  final  destruction 
when  either  the  mine  has  become  exhausted  or  when  its  market,  as  in 
case  of  being  displaced  by  foreign  ores,  is  destroyed. 

The  extent  of  these  necessary  appliances  for  transportation  by  land 
and  water  will  be  better  appreciated  if  we  bear  in  mind  that  while  in 
Great  Britain  the  average  distance  which  ore,  coal,  and  limestone  are 
carried  to  the  furnace  is  40  miles,  the  average  distance  carried  of  these 
materials  in  the  United  States  is  about  400  miles. 

The  Lake  Superior  mines  furnish  about  one-third  of  the, ore  for  the 
pig-iron  production  of  the  United  States.  The  capital  employed  in 
mining  is  estimated  to  be : 


Marquette  district $33, 000, 000 

Menominee  district 18, 000, 000 


51,000,000 

Fifteen  thousand  men  are  directly  employed  in  mining,  and  these  districts  support 
50,000  people. 

Three  railroads  leading  from  the  mines  to  the  lake  shipping  ports,  Mar- 
quette, Escanaba,  and  St.  Ignace,  built  almost  exclusively  for  ore 


transportation,  are  using  in  this  ore  transportation  exclusively $19,  325,  000 

Capital  in  vessels  and  steamers  ou  the  lakes  for  ore  transportation 6,  000,  000 

Capital  used  by  four  railroads,  exclusively  for  ore  transportation,  from 
the  harbors  of  Cleveland,  Ashtabula,  and  Erie  to  furnaces  in  Ohio 
and  Pennsylvania 5, 152, 807 


81,477,807 

Add  estimate  for  Vermillion  district  mines  and  railroads,  Minnesota. ..  5,  000,  000 

Gogebic  district,  mines,  and  railroad,  Wisconsin 3,500,000 


89, 977,807 


398  REPORT  OE  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


He>e,  then,  in  the  Northwest  alone,  in  various  connected,  dependent 
departments,  combined  and  organized  to  the  single  end  of  utilizing  its 
mineral  products  for  the  necessities  of  our  iron  and  steel  industries,  is 
the  vast  aggregate  of  nearly  $90,000,000.  And  it  is  permanently  in- 
vested ; withdrawal  of  it  elsewhere  is  impossible;  it  must  live  and  pros- 
per or  it  must  perish  where  it  is.  This  vast  combination  of  mining  and 
transportation  appliances  has  reached  its  present  magnitude  only  through 
slow  accretions.  The  seed  was  planted  thirty-five  years  ago  in  a 
wilderness;  it  has  come  to  fruitage,  as  in  many  another  instance  of 
material  development  on  a grand  scale,  with  all  the  alternations  of  suc- 
cess and  failure,  and  with  the  usual  concomitants  of  individual  loss  and 
disaster. 

But  what  of  the  labor  employed  ? From  the  nature  of  the  business, 
the  mining  and  transportation  of  a product  in  which  value  is  greatly 
disproportioned  to  the  tonnage  involved,  the  labor  permanently  em- 
ployed is  proportionately  larger.  From  the  first  tap  of  the  drill  and 
the  first  stroke  of  the  pick  in  the  mine  to  the  charge  at  the  tunnel-head 
of  the  furnace,  500  to  1,000  miles  distant,  all  is  labor,  and  it  is  the  labor 
of  American  citizens.  Their  wages  are  represented  by  the  comfortable 
homes  in  thriving  villages,  at  every  group  of  mines  in  the  forest,  and 
their  schools  and  churches  and  other  accessories  of  our  American  social 
life  reveal  the  difference  in  the  wages  paid  in  American  ore  production 
and  those  paid  in  Spain,  Africa,  and  Cuba.  But  ore-mining  in  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Missouri,  Virginia,  and  the  Southern 
States  is  carried  on  under  similar  conditions  as  on  Lake  Superior. 

It  is  a very  serious  question  whether  this  vast  aggregate  of  capital 
employed  in  this  business,  with  all  the  labor  occupation  involved,  in 
every  part  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  exposed  to  waste  and  loss 
through  the  recognition  of  our  tariff*  laws  in  any  degree  of  a theory  so 
impracticable  and  unjust  as  free  raw  materials.  Shall  not  American 
labor  in  the  mine,  in  constructing  and  operating  the  railroad,  and  in 
sailing  the  ship  on  the  transportation  route  be  protected  equally  with 
that  at  the  furnace  and  at  the  loom? 

From  the  foregoing  may  be  deduced  some  obvious  conclusions : 

(1)  Deposits  of  American  ore  are  practically  unlimited  in  extent  and 
of  every  variety  of  chemical  constitution,  suitable  for  steel  as  well  as 
iron.  Whatever,  therefore,  may  be  true  as  to  any  necessity  for  the  im- 
portation of  the  crude  material  of  any  other  industry,  no  necessity  for 
importation  exists  in  this  case. 

(2)  Under  a duty  fully  protective  home  competition  can  be  relied 
upon  to  meet  the  wants  of  our  iron  and  steel  manufactures,  with  every 
variety  of  ore,  at  the  lowest  cost  consistent  with  fair  wages  to  Ameri- 
can labor.  Reliance  upon  importations  would  be  dangerous  and  im- 
possible. American  ore  can  never  be  exported ; it  is  entitled  to  the 
home  market. 

These  are  the  propositions  of  the  capital  and  labor  engaged  in  the 
home  production.  To  these  the  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  of  the 
United  States,  with  the  fullest  comprehension  of  their  significance  in  re- 
spect to  the  safety  and  continued  expansion  of  their  buisuess,  and  also 
their  bearing  upon  the  great  problem  of  iron  and  steel  to  the  consumer 
at  lowest  possible  cost,  are  also  fully  agreed.  Can  such  absolute  decla- 
rations from  producer  and  consumer  be  ignored  at  the  instance  of  a few 
interested  individuals  and  corporations  in  a single  locality,  or  because 
a few  advocates  of  a theory  of  free  raw  material  choose  to  insist  that 
iron  ore  must  be  denied  protection  because  it  is  not  a “product.” 

I trust,  Mr.  Secretary,  that  these  rather  extended  remarks  in  expla- 


REVISION  OF  T£E  TARIFF. 


399 


nation  of  the  present  position  of  iron  ore  in  the  metal  schedule,  and  the 
relations  of  American  ore  production  to  our  iron  and  steel  industries 
and  to  the  business  interests  of  the  country,  will  not  be  regarded  as 
having  exceeded  the  proper  bounds  of  such  a communication.  If  so,  I 
suggest  that  they  may  be  justified  on  the  ground  of  the  liberal  terms  in 
which  your  letter  of  inquiry  invites  discussion,  and  in  view  of  the  vital 
relations  of  the  subject  to  the  industrial  and  financial  interests  of  the 
whole  country. 

It  will  be  observed,  Mr.  Secretary,  that  I am  a believer  in  the  prin- 
ciple of  protection ; that  I am  an  advocate  of  its  fullest  recognition  in 
our  tariff  laws,  and  of  its  application  for  the  defense  from  undue  foreign 
competition  of  every  American  industry.  I would  place  on  the  free  list 
the  products  of  foreign  countries  which  are,  or  can  be  made,  the  basis 
of  an  American  industry,  provided  their  importation  does  not  interfere 
with  and  displace  an  equivalent  product  of  home  labor.  1 would  put 
on  the  free  list  those  productions  of  other  countries  which  are  in  com- 
mon use  by  the  great  mass  of  our  people  and  which  cannot  be  advan- 
tageously produced  by  home  labor.  I would  make  the  duty  highest 
upon  articles  of  luxury  imported  for  the  rich  only.  I would  not  make 
the  duty  prohibitory  lest  it  tend  to  foster  monopolies. 

I would  make  the  duty  always  protective  upon  all  products  upon 
which  home  labor  is  or  can  be  employed,  to  the  extent  of  fully  covering 
the  difference  in  labor  cost  in  foreigu  countries  and  in  this  country. 

I am  not  in  favor  of  production  at  the  lowest  possible  cost , wheu  this 
involves  European  witges  for  the  American  citizen.  That  citizen  is 
charged  with  the  responsibilities  of  government.  For  these  he  can 
never  be  qualified  in  the  absence  of  the  means  of  education  aud  incen 
tives  to  moral  elevation.  Low  wages  mean  the  deterioration  and  degra- 
dation of  manhood  and  womanhood.  I believe  that  even  in  our  tariff 
laws,  beyond  economic  questions,  there  should  be  definite  .recognition 
of  these  higher  and  most  essential  objects. 

Upon  these  general  principles  the  present  tariff  was  framed.  Its 
practical  operation  over  a period  of  25  years  has  justified  the  principle. 
It  has  given  employment  to  labor  in  scores  of  industries  that  under  the 
opposing  economic  system  could  never  have  found  foothold  in  this  coun- 
try. Under  it,  wages  have  averaged  above  60  per  cent,  higher  than  in 
free-trade  countries,  while  the  cost  of  the  necessaries  and  of  the  com- 
forts of  life  are  in  the  main  as  low  as  in  such  countries.  The  superior 
social  conditions  of  labor  here  fully  confirm  this.  Instead  of  fostering 
monopolies,  this  tariff  has  promoted  home  competition,  so  that  a better 
article  comes  to  the  consumer,  and  at  lower  cost. 

As  a means  of  raising  revenue  for  the  support  of  the  Government,  it 
is  admitted  that  its  operation  is  both  uniform  and  effective.  Under  it 
trade  is  now  absolutely  free  among  all  our  States  and  Territories — the 
largest  and  best  market  in  the  world.  Can  it  be  wise  to  deprive  our- 
selves of  the  enormous  advantages  of  this  market  by  lowering  or  remov- 
ing duties  in  favor  of  foreign  manufacturing  and  commercial  competi- 
tors? 

It  cannot  be  claimed,  of  course,  that  our  tariff  laws  are  now  perfect 
in  all  details,  but  I am  of  the  opinion  that  no  general  revision  is  now 
necessary.  A thorough  review  and  fresh  adjustment  of  details,  after  a 
year  of  investigation  and  discussion  in  and  out  of  Congress,  has  but 
recently  been  completed.  The  changes  then  made  necessarily  affected 
all  business  interests  in  some  way.  There  was,  however,  no  time  for 
adjustment  to  the  conditions  imposed  by  the  new  law  before  agitation 
began  for  further  changes,  and  for  even  the  practical  discarding  and 
overthrow  of  the  principle  upon  which  the  present  tariff  was  framed, 


400 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


through  the  introduction  of  the  Morrison  bill  providing  for  20  per  cent, 
horizontal  reduction  in  the  last  session  of  Congress.  This  movement 
caused  alarm  and  apprehension  throughout  the  country ; nor  were  its 
effects  obviated  when  the  immediate  danger  was  passed. 

Our  industrial  and  financial  depression  of  the  last  two  years,  in  com- 
mon with  that  of  Great  Britain  and  other  parts  of  Europe,  has,  in  my 
opinion,  Mr.  Secretary,  been  greatly  aggravated  and  intensified  by  this 
injurious,  untimely  agitation.  No  other  result  could  have  been  ex- 
pected than  that  which  ensued — the  alarm  of  capital,  production  ar- 
rested, consumption  diminished,  labor  being  not  fully  employed  or 
wages  reduced. 

For  these  and  other  reasons,  Mr.  Secretary,  I most  earnestly  hope 
that  beyond,  possibly,  any  slight  changes  that  may  be  necessary  for 
reducing  the  expense  and  for  the  more  efficient  collection  of  the  reve- 
nue, the  tariff  laws  may  remain,  for  the  present,  at  least,  undisturbed. 

I remain,  honorable  sir,  very  respectfullv, 

GEOKGE  H.  ELY. 


[J.  B.  Moorehead  & Co.,  pig-iron.'] 

Philadelphia,  August  10,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

, Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  issued*to  manufacturers,  I re- 
spectfully submit  a letter  I addressed  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means  of  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  in  February,  1884.  Circum- 
stances have  somewhat  changed  since  the  date  of  my  letter  in  reducing 
the  cost  of  producing  one  ton  of  pig-iron,  in  a reduced  cost  of  iron  ore, 
coal,  coke,*  and  limestone  and  labor  of  about  $3  per  ton  of  pig-iron.  At 
the  same  time  the  average  price  of  the  market  is  at  least  $3  per  ton  less 
than  in  February,  1884,  so  that,  relatively,  the  producer  is  in  about  the 
same  position. 

The  capital  invested  in  the  plant  and  including  s’ock  on  hand  of  the 
company  I represent  is  at  this  date  about  $480,000.  I am  only  inter- 
ested in  the  manufacture  of  pig-iron,  and  will  not  attempt  to  deal  with 
other  manufactures.  I think  in  all  cases  where  it  is  practicable  specific 
duties  should  prevail. 

The  fact  of  the  low  cost  of  raw  materials  now  prevailing  for  produc- 
ing pig-iron  is  so  low  as  not  to  allow  a reasonable  and  fair  compensa- 
tion for  the  laborer  or  operating  mines  (actually  starvation  prices), 
should  not  be  considered  a fair  basis  to  form  a tariff  for  revenue  pur- 
poses. Better  times  should  prevail  for  the  laborer,  the  mine  owner, 
and  the  manufacturer.  This  will  of  course  increase  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion. At  present  low  prices  in  our  market  foreign  pig-iron  cannot  be 
imported  to  any  considerable  extent,  but  with  an  advance  of  about  $3 
or  $4  per  ton,  which  all  parties  interested  in  the  materials  producing 
pig-iron  are  justly  entitled  to  to  give  them  fair  compensation,  the 
foreign  iron  will  flood  our  market,  unless  an  increase  is  made  in  the  tariff 
on  pig-iron  over  the  existing  tariff. 

The  difference  in  the  cost  of  labor  in  this  country  over  the  cost  of  labor 
in  England  to  produce  a ton  of  pig-iron,  including  mining  ore  and  coal, 
producing  coke,  and  quarrying  limestone,  is  fully  equal  to  the  present 
tariff.  Our  productive  capacity  to  make  pig-iron  in  this  country  is  at 
this  day  greatly  in  excess  of  the  consumption  ol  the  United  States. 
Under  such  circumstances  why  should  we  not  protect  our  own  market 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


401 


for  our  own  manufacturers,  develop  our  own  country,  line!  employment 
for  our  laborers  at  fair  wages,  and  make  our  own  people  happy  and 
prosperous? 

Respectfully  yours, 

J.  B.  MOORHEAD, 

President. 


Letter  of  February,  1884. 


To  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means. 

Gentlemen:  The  undersigned  has  been  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron 
since  1857  ; he  has  given  the  business  his  close  personal  attention,  and  claims  to  be  a 
practical  man. 

The  location  of  his  works  (on  the  Schuylkill)  and  the  character  of  his  plant  are  fully 
equal  to  the  average  of  furnaces  in  the  Lehigh  and  Schuylkill  valleys.  He  has  now 
two  idle  furnaces,  and  none  in  blast.  The  reasons  for  their  standing  idle  at  this  time 
will  be  shown  by  the  following  statement  of  the  cost  of  production  and  the  present 
ruling  of  prices  of  the  market  for  pig  iron. 

Cost  of  production : 

2 ton  s of  ore $9  10 

1£  tons  of  coal  and  coke 5 50 

Limestone  for  flux 1 00 

Labor,  oil,  and  running  repairs 2 70 


Actual  cost  per  ton  of  iron 18  30 

No  allowance  is  made  for  interest  on  capital  invested,  or  for  wear  and  tear  of  plant. 
Ruling  prices  to-day  of  the  different  grades  of  pig-iron  at  furnace: 


No.  1 foundry  iron $20  00 

No.  2 foundry  iron 19  00 

No.  3 gray  forge  iron 17  00 

mottled  iron 16  00 

white  iron 15  00 


Average  of  the  five  grades 17  40 

Supposing  a furnace  to  make  equal  quantities  of  each  grade,  the  cost  would  be  $18.30 
per  ton  ; and  the  result  of  sales,  taking  the  average  of  the  five  grades,  would  be  $17.40 
per  ton  ; showing  a loss,  per  ton,  of  90  cents  ; no  allownnce  being  made  for  interest  on 
capital  or  to  make  good  the  wear  and  tear  of  the  plant.  Allowing  for  a blast  of  two 
years,  which  is  fully  up  to  the  average,  an  expenditure  of  from  fifteen  to  twenty  thou- 
sand dollars  is  usually  necessary  to  put  the  works  in  good  repair  to  start  on  a new 
blast. 

On  a production  of  17,500  tons  of  pig  iron  in  twelvemonths  (the  capacity  of  one  fur- 
nace) the  loss  wrould  be,  in  a blast  of  two  years,  say  on  35,000  tons  of  iron  at  90 
cents  per  ton,  $31,500. 

These  facts  are  sufficient  reasons  to  account  for  idle  furnaces  at  this  time.  There 
should  be  a margin  of  profit  of  at  least  $1.50  per  ton,  to  pay  interest  on  capital  in- 
vested and  to  make  goo rl.  the  wear  and  tear  of  the  plant  after  two  years’  running.  To 
warrant  this  result,  the  average  ruling  price  of  iron  above  the  present  ruling  price 
should  be  not  less  than  $2.40  per  ton.  How  can  this  be  accomplished  with  a reduction 
of  the  present  tariff  ? 

The  necessities  of  the  case  require  an  increase  of  at  least  $2  per  ton  on  the  present 
tariff  on  pig  iron,  to  keep  foreign  iron  out  of  our  market,  and  that  the  price  here  may 
be  advanced  to  cover  cost  of  production.  At  the  present  prices  it  is  only  a question 
of  financial  ability  and  time  to  determine  the  closing  of  many  of  the  furnaces  now  in 
blast. 

Respectfullv  submitted. 

J.  B.  MOREHEAD. 

Philadelphia,  February  14,  1884. 

S.  Ex.  72 26 


402 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[The  Pottstown  Iron  Co.,  pig  iron.~\ 


Pottstown , Pa.,  August  31,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury,  Washington , I).  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  response  to  your  circular  letter  of  6th  instant,  beg  to 
say,  that  having  learned  that  Mr.  James  M.  Swank,  of  the  American 
Iron  and  Steel  Association,  at  your  request,  is  preparing  a report  of 
average  returns  from  the  various  industrial  enterprises  of  our  country, 
we  have  forwarded  to  him  statements  showing  cost  of  the  materials 
we  manufacture,  which  will  ultimately  come  before  you  in  the  general 
average  of  Mr.  Swank’s  report. 

In  further  reply  we  would  say,  that  allowing  royalties  of  30  cents  per 
ton  on  anthracite,  10  cents  to  15  cents  per  ton  on  bituminous  coals,  10 
cents  on  limestones,  and  30  cents  to  50  cents  per  ton  ou  ores,  the  balance 
of  present  price  of  pig  iron,  and  its  various  manufactured  products,  con- 
sists of  labor  and  interest  in  some  form,  and  principally  the  former,  as 
many  of  our  branches  are  conducted  at  an  absolute  loss. 

Analyzing  pig  iron  you  will  find  that  after  deducting  royalties  above 
mentioned,  the  cost  of  mining  and  transporting  is  again  largely  labor, 
either  direct  or  indirect,  as  repairs  or  cost  of  plant. 

So,  also,  blast  furnace  expenses  consist  of  similar  items,  and  the  con- 
version in  mills  into  plates,  nails,  or  bars,  and  in  many  cases  the  mines 
and  works  are  operated  without  netting  even  royalty  or  interest. 

The  freights,  which  enter  more  largely  into  cost  of  manufacture  here 
than  in  England,  on  account  of  the  greater  distances  apart  of  our  fuel 
and  ores,  are  again  all  labor,  since  cost  of  road  bed  and  rails  and  main 
tenance  of  way  are  all  reducible  to  labor,  quite  as  well  as  the  actual 
cost  of  loading  and  moving,  so  that  all  exceeding  $1  per  ton  received 
for  royalty  on  ra  w materials  undeveloped  may  justly  in  these  times  be 
classed  as  labor. 

We  are  decidedly  in  favor  of  specific  duties  ou  all  grades  of  iron  and 
steel.  We  think  the  lower  classes  of  labor  should  have  better  pro 
tection,  and  would  advocate  a return  of  the  duty  on  pig  iron  to  $7  and 
on  ores  to  $1  per  ton. 

We  believe  the  manufacture  of  tin  plate  and  building  of  iron  ships 
in  this  country  would  so  materially  aid  business  as  to  convert  the 
present  depression  into  a period  of  prosperity  ; and  we  would  advocate 
the  duty  of  2£  cents  per  pound  on  tin  plate,  and  of  2 cents  per  pound 
on  steel  ingots  and  slabs,  and  2£  cents  on  manufactures  of  steel  not 
enumerated;  and  a liberal  remuneration  for  the  carrying  of  foreign 
mails  in  American-built  vessels,  thereby  opening  up  to  us  the  foreign 
markets,  into  which,  with  equal  carrying  facilities,  we  believe  we  can 
now  successfully  enter. 

Very  respectfully, 

WILLIAM  H.  MORRIS, 


Treasurer. 


[The  Eastern  Pig  Iron  Association,  pig  iron.  J 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  November  4,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington,  D.  C. : 

Sir  : 1 have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  the  reply  of  the  Eastern 
Pig-Iron  Association  to  your  letter  of  September,  1885,  relating  to  u in- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


403 


vestigations  of  the  methods  of  entry  and  appraisement  of  imported  arti- 
cles,” showing  u that  the  tariff  laws  are  largely  evaded  by  undervalua- 
tion wherever  the  duties  are  levied  ad  valorem,”  and  asking  the  views 
of  those  interested  as  to  the  probable  efficacy  of  the  substitution  of 
specific  duties,  giving  rates,  as  a means  of  remedying  such  irregularities. 
Also  asking  views  as  to  the  feasibility  of  simplifying  the  tariff  and  sub- 
mitting certain  points  of  inquiry  with  reference  to  that  object. 

I desire  to  press  upon  your  attention  the  information  conveyed  in 
this  report.  The  region  covered  * represents  the  cradle  of  iron  manu- 
factures in  the  United  States,  a branch  of  industry  to-day  as  extensive 
in  its  operations  and  influence  as  the  nation. 

It  also  presents  that  phase  of  the  question  of  iron  production  in  the 
United  States  which  might  not  appear  with  so  much  force  in  the  opera- 
tions of  the  same  industry  in  the  more  remote  States  of  the  interior, 
viz,  proximity  to  the  seaboard,  and  therefore  greater  liability  to  sub 
jection  to  the  more  direct  and  degrading  effects  of  the  competition  of 
the  iron  product  of  the  pauper-paid  labor  of  foreign  countries. 

Very  respectfully, 

HENRY  S.  ECKERT, 

President  Eastern  Pig-Iron  Association. 

De  B.  RANDOLPH  KEIM, 

Secretary. 


(1)  Pig-iron. 

(2)  Cost  of  production . — In  the  last  three  years  has  varied  from  $17  to  $20  per  ton 

(2,240  pounds;.  • 

(a)  Cost  of  materials  and  character  of  same. — Pig-iron  is  produced  by  smelting  in  a 
blast  furnace  iron  ores  and  limestone  with  fuel. 

Iron  ores  are  very  extensively  disseminated,  being  fonnd  in  every  known  country. 
When  perfectly  pure  they  contain  nothing  but  iron  and  oxygen,  and  sometimes  car- 
bon in  various  proportions. 

Pure  red  hematite  contains  70  per  cent,  of  iron  and  30  per  cent,  of  oxygen ; pure 
brown  hematite,  60  per  ceut.  of  iron  and  40  per  cent,  of  oxygen ; pure  magnetite,  72.4 
per  cent,  of  iron  and  27.6  per  cent,  of  oxygen;  pure  protocarbonate,  48  per  cent,  of 
iron  and  52  per  cent,  of  oxygen  and  carbon. 

But  these  ores  are  never  found  pure  in  commercial  quantities,  being  mixed  with 
various  substances,  principally  silica,  lime,  and  alumina  in  every  conceivable  propor- 
tion. 

The  ores  occur  either  iu  veins  of  varying  sizes  and  of  many  degrees  of  hardness,  or 
in  fragments  scattered  more  or  less  abundantly  through  deposits  of  sand  or  clay. 
These  last  require  washing  to  remove  the  foreign  matter. 

It  is  evident  from  the  above  that  as  tlwe  ores  vary  infinitely  in  purity,  and  in  facility 
of  mining,  and  must  be  necessarily  located  at  various  distances  from  the  furnace, 
which  produces  a variance  in  cost  of  transportation,  it  is  impossible  to  state  the  cost 
of  ores  generally. 

But  something  like  au  average  may  be  reached  in  another  way.  It  may  be  said 
that  at  the  present  price  of  iron  no  blast  furnace  can  afford  to  run  unless  the  cost  of 
its  ores  is  below  8 cents  per  unit,  i.  e.,  $8  for  the  quantity  of  ore  required  to  produce 
a ton  of  iron.  In  fact,  very  few  can  pay  that  much  unless  thoy  have  exceptional  ad- 
vantages in  other  respects,  such  as  cost  of  fuel,  nearness  to  market,  cheapness  of 
labor,  &c. 

In  this  cost  of  $8  for  the  ores  required  to  produce  a ton  of  pig  iron  about  $6.50 
would  be  expended  for  labor,  50  cents  for  royalty  to  owner  of  mines,  and$l  for  trans- 
portation. But  this  distribution  would,  of  course,  vary  with  the  circumstances  of  the 
locality. 

There  is  one  class  of  ores  of  exceptional  purity  in  regard  to  phosphorus,  which  are 
used  in  making  iron  from  which  steel  is  to  be  afterwards  produced  by  the  acid  Besse- 
mer process.  These  ores  are  comparatively  rare  iu  the  vicinity  of  most  of  the  great 
steel  works,  though  found  in  most  parts  of  this  country  in  some  quantity,  and  usually 
command  a higher  price  for  the  special  use  mentioned.  Furnaces  situated  near  the 
coast  often  import  foreign  ores  for  this  purpose  in  preference  to  x>aying  high  trans_ 


404  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


portation  charges  from  the  mines  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Michigan, 
Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  North  Carolina,  and  Tennessee,  where  the  largest  de- 
posits of  Bessemer  ores  are  found.  These  foreign  ores  come  mainly  from  Spain,  Algiers, 
and  the  island  of  Elba.  Recently  they  have  also  been  brought  from  Cuba.  Such  ores, 
averaging  50  per  cent,  of  metallic  iron,  can  be  laid  down  in  the  Atlantic  ports  for 
about  $4  per  ton,  including  the  duty  of  75  cents  per  ton. 

Much  has  been  said  by  persons  interested  in  foreign  mines,  or  who  wish  to  get  for- 
eign ores  as  cheaply  as  possible,  about  removing  the  duty  on  ores  as  an  incentive  to 
the  manufacture  of  pig  iron.  As  to  that  we  wish  to  say,  as  makers  of  pig  iron,  we 
are  opposed  to  any  reduction  of  duty.  It  is  not  true,  as  has  been  asserted  by  those 
who  ought  to  know  better,  that  the  importation  of  foreign  ores  benefits  the  native 
miner  by  enabling  him  to  market  a portion  of  his  phosphatic  product  for  mixture  with 
an  equal  portion  of  the  purer  imported  article  for  the  production  of  Bessemer  iron. 
Such  mixture  is  unheard  of  in  practice.  Our  native  ores  are  as  good  though  not  as 
cheap,  as  the  foreign  article,  and  every  ton  of  foreign  ore  imported  displaces  just  one 
ton  of  native  ore. 

We  believe  the  only  certain  method  to  secure  an  adequate,  regular,  and  satisfactory 
supply  of  raw  materials  used  in  making  pig  iron  is  by  the  maintenance  of  adequate 
protective  duties  upon  such  materials  as  are  produced  at  home.  And  while  anxious 
to  prevent  any  legislation  that  would  be  damaging  to  our  own  manufacture,  we  have 
no  desire  to  profit  at  the  expense  of  kindred  industries,  notably  so  in  the  case  of  the 
principal  raw  materials  of  our  own  consumption,  namely,  iron  ore  and  fuels.  While 
some  temporary  benefit  might  accrue  to  us  from  free  ore,  soft  coal,  and  coke,  such 
gain  would  wrork  serious  injury  to  the  labor  now  engaged  in  the  home  industries, 
and  we  do  not  think  it  either  expedient  or  just  that  American  producers  of  coal, 
coke,  and  iron  ore  should  be  compelled  to  compete  with  the  much  lower  labor  of 
foreign  countries,  while  manufacturers  of  pig  iron  and  nearly  all  finished  materials 
enjoy  a greater  or  less  degree  of  protection.  Further,  we  desire  to  put  on  record 
our  belief  that  any  advantage  to  manufacturers  growing  out  of  the  admission  of  free 
raw  materials  that  are  produced  in  this  country  would  be  but  temporary.  Any  con- 
siderable reliance  upon  foreign  sources  for  the  supply  of  iron  ore  (which  is  the 
foundation  of  our  vast  iron  and  steel  industry)  might  at  any  time  prove  disastrous 
by  reason  of  an  interruption  of  shipments  caused  by  war.  Any  crippling  of  Ameri- 
can mining,  causing  stoppage  even  of  the  dead  work  involved  in  the  intelligent 
development  of  our  home  ores,  and  making  our  iron  and  steel  works  dependent 
upon  foreign  supply  of  ores  in  time  of  war,  would  infallibly  weaken  our  ability  for 
national  defense.  So  that  the  future  interest  and  safety  of  the  whole  iron  and  steel 
manufacture  and  of  the  country  at  large  is  involved  in  this  question,  even  if  simple 
justice  to  the  capital  apd  labor  in  mining  be  not  considered. 

Should  unfavorable  legislation  result  in  crippling  or  closing  American  mines,  it 
should  be  well  understood  that  in  case  of  war  the  supply  of  iron  ore  and  coal  would 
be  totally  inadequate  to  properly  maintain  the  equipment  of  our  laud  and  sea  forces. 

To  reopen  and  make  productive  abandoned  mines  might  take  months,  or  even  years. 

Limestone. — This  is  used  as  a flux.  It  acts  by  combining  at  a high  temperature 
with  the  silica  and  other  impurities  of  the  ore,  forming  a fusible  slag,  which  sinks 
toward  the  bottom  of  the  furnace,  but,  being  lighter  than  the  melted  iron,  floats  on 
it  and  is  tapped  oft'  and  removed. 

Pure  limestone  is  a carbonate  of  lime.  It  is  very  rarely  pure.  Most  limestones  con- 
tain a mixture  of  carbonate  of  magnesia  which  is  not  deleterious,  as  it  also  acts  as  a 
flux.  Besides  this  they  contain  silica  (which  is  injurious  when  in  larger  proportion 
than  6 or  7 per  cent.)  and  other  substances  in  small  quantities. 

The  cost  of  quarrying  limestone  and  transporting  it  to  the  furnace  varies  very 
much  with  circumstances,  and  the  quantity  required  varies  with  the  amouutof  silica 
or  other  impurity  to  be  removed  from  the  ore. 

The  cost  of  limestone  per  ton  of  iron  may  be  safely  estimated  at  somewhere  between 
50  cents  and  $1  per  ton.  Of  this  cost  80  to  90  per  cent,  is  for  labor,  5 per  cent,  for 
royalty,  and  the  balance  for  transportation.  Of  this  last  (transportation)  we  believe 
fully  two-thirds  to  be  for  labor. 

Fuel. — This  is  either  charcoal,  anthracite  coal,  bituminous  coal,  or  coke,  or  a mixture 
of  some  of  the  last  three.  About  two-thirds  of  the  charcoal  is  made  by  the  furnace 
owner,  and  its  cost  depends  upon  the  rate  of  wages  and  the  length  of  the  haul.  It 
will  average  about  7 cents  per  bushel,  and  the  quantity  required  is  from  90  to  150 
bushels  per  ton  of  iron. 

Anthracite,  bituminous  coal,  and  coke  are  rarely  produced  by  the  furnace  owner, 
but  are  bought  in  open  market.  In  that  case  the  cost  at  the  furnace  varies  with  the 
length  of  the  transportation.  It  probably  averages  from  $5  to  $6.50  per  ton  of  iron, 
according  to  location.  Of  this  cost  from  30  to  60  cents  per  tou  of  iron  is  royalty,  the 
balance  being  labor  and  transportation,  which  last  is  probably  two-thirds  labor. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


405 


(&)  Cost  of  labor. — The  actual  cost  of  furnace  labor,  including  handling  materials 
and  product,  with  superintendence,  at  a well-managed  furnace  will  average  $2  to  $2.50 
per  ton  of  iron.  Taking  $2  as  a standard,  the  items  would  be  about  as  follows : 


Superintendence,  including  clerical  labor $0  30 

Cinder  men  (removing  slag) 30 

Fillers  (putting  materials  into  furnace) 70 

Iron  men  (preparing  beds  and  handling  iron) 20 

General  men  (blacksmiths,  enginemen,  laborers,  &c.) 50 


Total 2 00 


The  rates  of  wages  range  from  11  cents  per  hour  for  unskilled  labor  to  $1.75  and 
$2.50  per  day  for  skilled  mechanics. 

(c)  Operating  expenses. — The  principal  item  of  operating  expenses  is  labor,  given 
above.  The  other  items  are  incidentals  and  repairs.  Incidentals  iuclude  small  daily 
repairs  to  furnace  and  machinery,  as  well  as  such  items  as  feed  for  horses  and  oil  for 
lubrication  and  light,  &c.  These,  of  course,  vary  every  month,  but  will  average  75 
cents  per  ton  of  iron. 

Repairs. — Generally  apply  to  large  items,  always  required  when  an  accident  occurs, 
or  the  furnace  goes  out  of  blast  at  the  close  of  the  campaign.  The  relining  of  the  fur- 
nace with  fire  brick  and  a thorough  overhauling  of  the  machinery  is  always  neces- 
sary at  the  end  of  a blast,  before  the  furnace  can  be  started  up  again.  The  amount 
of  repairs  required  varies  very  much,  and  can  never  be  determined  till  the  furnace  is 
cold  and  emptied  to  admit  of  inspection.  Then  the  length  of  the  blast  varies  from 
a few  months  to  four  or  five  years,  and  of  course  the  quantity  of  iron  against  which 
the  repairs  are  chargeable  varies  with  the  length  of  the  blast.  For  these  reasons  the 
amount  per  ton  due  to  cost  of  repairs  can  only  be  estimated  while  the  furnace  is  in 
blast,  but  it  is  considered  safe  to  charge  50  cents  per  ton  for  this  item. 

In  order  to  comply  with  the  Secretary’s  request  for  itemized  expenditures,  we 
append  a statement  of  the  actual  cost  of  making  pig-iron  at  four  works  in  different 
parts  of  the  country  east  of  the  Allegheny  Mountains,  which  may  be  taken  as  typical 
establishments  in  the  districts  where  they  are  located.  This  statement  covers  the 
years  1882,  1883,  and  1884. 


Tons  iron 
made. 

Fuel. 

Ore. 

Limestone. 

Wages  and 
salaries. 

Incidentals. 

Repairs. 

Total  cost. 

I.  64, 200 
II.  96,  000 

$5  15 
5 47 

$8  50 
9 58 

$0  97 
42 

$2  25 
1 82 

$0  43 
72 

$17  30 
18  70 

$0  69 

III.  52, 152 

5 96 

9 26 

82 

2 10 

62 

19 

18  95 

IV.  90,  500 

6 50 

9 00 

69 

2 37 

1 10 

50 

20  16 

The  cost  here  given  is  absolute  expense  at  the  works  and  does  not  include  cost  of 
sales  and  general  office,  commissions,  interest,  taxes,  &c.,  which  may  be  found  treated 
hereafter. 

While  it  will  be  seen  that  the  direct  charge  for  labor  at  the  furnace  ranges  from 
$1.82  to  $2.37  per  ton  of  iron,  it  must  be  emphatically  stated  that  the  other  items, 
fuel,  ore,  limestone  and  repairs  are  very  largely,  perhaps  90  per  cent.,  made  up  of 

labor. 

( d ) Interest. — A furnace  capable  of  producing  with  rich  ores  100  tons  of  pig  iron  per 
day,  with  the  necessary  appurtenances,  can  be  built  for  about  $200,000.  The  same 
furnace  working  on  lean  ores  might  not  produce  over  70  tons  per  day.  In  one  case 
the  interest,  $32.87  per  day,  would  be  32|  cents  per  ton  of  iron.  In  the  other  case  it 
would  be  4 6$,  cents  per  ton  of  iron. 

Supposing  the  furnace  to  purchase  all  the  materials  used,  and  to  carry  unsold  only 
six  weeks’  production,  it  would  require  a working  capital  of  $75,000  at  least,  and 
$100,000  would  be  far  safer.  The  interest  on  the  smaller  sum,  $12.33  per  day,  would 
be  12£  cents  per  ton  on  a make  of  100  tons,  and  17T{j  per  ton  on  a make  of  70  tons  per 
day. 

Other  elements  of  cost  not  covered  by  the  above  are  taxes,  insurance,  and  commis- 
sions on  sales  (about  1 per  cent.),  to  which  should  be  added  the  cost  of  reaching  mar- 
ket. These  items  will  at  least  average  $1.00  per  ton. 

3.  Description  of  buildings. — As  every  iron  furnace  differs  from  every  other  in  many 


406  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


respects,  it  is  impossible  to  give  other  than  a general  description.  The  usual  build- 
ings are : 


(1)  The  furnace  stack  costing $30,000 

(2)  The  cast-house 10, 000 

(3)  The  stock-house,  for  storing  ore  and  fuel,  with  track,  &c 10,  000 

(4)  The  eDgine-house 10,000 

(5)  Boiler-house 5,000 

(6)  Hot  ovens 40,000 

The  machinery  consists  of  one  or  two  steam  engines,  with  boilers  and  at- 
tachments, pumps,  &c 80,  000 

The  hot-blast  pipes  aud  cold-air  pipes 10, 000 

The  hoist  or  elevator  for  raising  materials  to  the  top  of  the  furnace 5, 000 

Total  costing,  as  above,  about 200, 000 


This  does  not  include  houses  for  workmen,  which  are  sometimes  absolutely  neces- 
sary ; nor  the  cost  of  land,  nor  does  it  include  locomotives  and  cars,  which  in  most  cases 
are  indispensable. 

(4)  The  imported  article  pig  iron  is  subject  to  a specific  duty  of  $6.72  per  ton,  or 
three-tenths  of  a cent  per  pound,  but  scrap  iron  which  bears  the  same  rate  of  duty  is 
used  in  place  of  pig  irou,  and  as  one  ton  of  scrap  is  equivalent  to  one  ton  and  a quarter 
of  pig,  we  consider  that  the  duty  is  too  low.  The  duty  should  be  $8.40  per  ton  on 
scrap  iu  order  to  equalize  the  two  and  protect  our  workmen  engaged  in  the  laborious 
occupation  of  puddling — i.  e.,  reducing  pig  irou  to  the  form  of  wrought  iron.  We 
further  assert  that  the  duty  on  pig  iron  is  entirely  too  low.  It  was  reduced  from  $7 
to  $6.72  by  the  Tariff  act  of  1883.  It  should  now  be  advanced  to  $8  the  figure  re- 
commended by  the  Cresson  convention  to  the  Tariff  Commission  in  1882,  and  scrap 
iron  should  be  advanced  proportionately. 

(5)  As  our  reply  is  general  and  is  intended  to  represent  an  average  over  the  whole 
country  east  of  the  Allegheny  Mountains,  matters  of  exceptional  advantage  or  disad- 
vantage on  account  of  location  are  eliminated.  We  may  properly  state  here  that 
England  and  Belgium  have  an  advantage  over  all  localities  in  this  country  arising 
from  the  smallness  of  those  countries  and  the  proximity  of  the  materials  for  making 
iron.  Although  the  freight  rates  on  English  and  continental  railroads  are  at  least 
double  those  on  American  roads,  yet  the  haulage  distauce  is  so  much  less  on  the  former 
that  the  foreign  iron  maker  has  enormous  advantages  iu  home  transportation.  At  the 
same  time  the  ocean  freights  are  so  low  that  the  3,000  miles  from  Europe  to  America 
costs  no  more  than  150  miles  on  an  American  railroad.  As  to  the  wages  paid  in  Europe 
generally,  we  know  no  better  source  of  information  than  the  recent  book  by  Sir  I. 
Lowthian  Bell,  on  the  manufacture  of  iron,  which  contains  full  aud  authentic  details 
on  this  subject.  We  may  say  generally  that  American  wages  in  all  departments  of 
the  iron  manufacture  range  from  75  per  cent,  to  100  per  cent,  above  those  in  corre- 
sponding circumstances  in  Europe. 

In  conclusion,  we  would  say  that  we  know  of  no  evasions  of  duties  by  importers  of 
pig  iron,  nor  do  we  believe  that  any  exist.  We  are,  however,  directly  interested  in 
the  importation  of  bar,  sheet,  and  merchant  iron,  because  every  ton  of  these  contains 
at  least  a ton  and  a half  of  pig  iron  in  a more  advanced  state  of  manufacture.  Con- 
sequently any  evasion  of  the  tariff  on  bar  or  sheet  iron  affects  our  business,  and  we  be- 
lieve that  evasions  of  duties  have  been  largely  practiced  on  such  articles.  But  we 
leave  it  to  the  manufacturers  of  wrought  iron  in  its  various  forms  to  point  out  the 
source  and  remedy  for  such  evasions,  with  which  they  are  far  more  familiar  than  we 
can  be. 

We  would  here  call  attention  to  three  instances,  not  indeed  evasions,  but  cases  of 
inadequate  duties.  Spiegel  iron  is  classified  as  pig  iron  aud  pays  the  same  duty, 
though  it  is  worth  $10  per  ton  more  than  pig  iron.  Ferro-manganese,  also  classified  as 
pig  iron  aud  paying  the  same  duty,  is  worth  from  $20  to  $50  per  ton  more  than  pig 
irou.  The  duty  on  spiegel  iron  containing  20  per  cent,  of  manganese  or  less  should 
be  at  least  $12  per  ton,  and  ferro-manganese  for  every  unit  of  manganese  above  20  per 
cent,  should  pay  an  additional  duty  of  20  cents  per  unit  of  mangauese,  which  would 
be,  say,  $24  per  ton  duty  on  the  highest  grade,  80  per  cent,  ferro-manganese.  Out  of  a 
total  import  of  about  100,000  tons  pig  for  the  9 months  ending  September  30,  1885, 
about  50,000  tons  were  high  grade  spiegel  iron  and  fero- manganese,  showing  the  utter 
inadequacy  of  the  existing  duty  to  enable  home  production  of  these  special  irous. 
Tin  plate,  which  is  95  percent,  sheet  iron,  pays  less  duty  than  the  iron  sheets  of  which 
it  is  made,  and  consequently  the  manufacture  in  this  country  is  killed. 

We  would  respectfully  protest  against  tbe  expression  in  the  Secretary’s  letter  call- 
ing duties  “ taxes  on  the  imported  article.”  This  word  “ tax  ” gives  rise  to  misapprehen- 
sion and  misconstruction.  It  seems  to  sanction  tbe  doctrine  of  the  free  traders(which 
we  utterly  deny,  aud  which  we  cannot  believe  that  the  Secretary  admits),  that  every 
duty  is  a tax  on  the  consumer. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


407 


We  would  further  respectfully  protest  against  any  agitation  tending  to  lower  the 
rates  of  duty.  Business  is  now  passing  through  a cycle  of  low  prices.  There  are 
sigDs  of  improvement.  But  if  we  are  to  have  a six  months’  discussion  in  Congress 
with  doubtful  result,  business  will  simply  bait  to  wait  for  the  outcome,  as  no  man 
will  buy  to-day  wbat  be  may  get  cheaper  six  months  hence.  We  have  no  great  con- 
fidence that  our  protest  will  be  regarded,  as  our  past  experience  lias  not  shown  us 
that  Congressmen  either  know  or  care  much  for  the  wishes  of  the  business  community. 

We  would  further  state  as  our  deliberate  conviction  that  any  material  reduction 
in  the  present  duties  on  iron  in  its  various  forms  will  close  three-fourths  of  the  es- 
tablishments in  this  country  and  transfer  the  manufacture  to  Europe.  That  may  he 
desirable  in  the  eyes  of  a pure  cosmopolitan  humanitarian,  but  as  American  citizens 
we  cannot  approve  of  it. 

Wm.  A.  Ingham,  chairman,  president  Rockhill  Iron  and  C.  Co.,  Huntingdon  County, 
(Central  Pennsylvania  district) ; Frank  S.  Witherbee,  Cedar  Point  I.  and  S.  Co.,  Port 
Henry,  N.  Y.,  (Lake  Champlain  district) ; Henry  S.  Eckert,  Henry  Clay  Furnaces  and 
Topton  Iron  Co.,  (Schuylkill  Valley  district) ; F.  A.  Comly,  president  Lougdale  Iron 
Co.,  Longdale,  Va.,  and  treasurer  Andover  Iron  Co.,  Phillipsburg, N.  J.  ; Fred’k  Prime, 
vice-president  Allentown  Iron  Co.  (Lehigh  district),  Allentown,  Pa. ; J.  Wesley  Pull- 
man, treasurer  West  Point  Iron  Co.  (Hudson  River  district),  Cold  Spring,  N.  Y. 


[Edward  Nichols,  pig-iron.'] 

Hermitage,  Ga.,  October  10,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Washington , I).  G.: 

Dear  Sir  : Your  favor  of  August  4,  referring  to  duties  on  merchan- 
dise, &c.,  is  at  hand,  and  in  reply  would  say  that  the  branch  of  manu- 
factures which  I am  interested  iu,  viz,  pig  irou,  is  subject  to  a specific 
duty,  and  hence  not  included  in  those  dutiable  articles  about  which 
you  ask  information. 

The  present  duty  of  $6.72  per  ton  I do  not  consider  too  high,  as,  after 
personal  investigation  of  the  labor  question  in  this  country  and  abroad, 
I believe  this  does  not  fully  cover  the  actual  money  (purchasing  value) 
difference  of  wages  paid  here  and  in  Europe. 

* # # # # # * 

We  have  buildings  worth  $75,000,  and  about  3,000  acres  of  land. 
Taking  the  amount  of  money  paid  for  cutting  wood  as  a basis  for  cal- 
culation, 1 should  say  that  we  paid  labor  nearly  twice  as  much  as  is 
paid  to  laborers  in  Sweden  who  do  the  same  class  of  work  iu  charcoal- 
iron  making. 

Truly  yours, 

EDWARD  NICHOLS. 


[The  Ashland  Coal  and  Iron  Railway  Company,  pig-iron.'] 

Ashland,  Ky.,  August  28,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  as  to  tariff  laws,  we  beg  leave 
to  say  that  “specific  duties”  on  pig-iron  only  will  prevent  fraud  and 
that  generally  on  iron  and  steel  duties  should  be  specific. 

If.  as  can  hardly  be  questioned,  the  duty  is  intended  to  be  protective, 
an  ad  valorem  duty  gives  least  protection  when  most  needed,  thus  de- 
feating part  of  its  purpose. 

Very  respectfully, 


JOHN  MEANS. 


408 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[The  Baltimore  Iron  Company,  pig-iron.'] 


Baltimore,  August  19,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning  : 

My  Dear  Sir  : In  response  to  your  request  of  July  17  I here  with 
give  you  cost  of  1 ton  coke  pig-iron  in  Baltimore  : 


Ore  per  ton  of  pig-iron $8  00 

Lime  to  flux 50 

Coke  per  ton  pig-iron 5 00 

Labor  at  furnace  only 2 00 

Contingent  expenses 1 50 

Interest,  managing,  taxes,  &c 1 00 


13  00 

Of  the  above  cost,  817  is  labor  or  its  equivalent,  as  the  natural  values 
are  2J  tons  ore  in  tlie  ground,  worth  50  cents,  and  2J  tons  coal,  worth 
50  cents;  therefore,  as  England  pays  45  per  cent,  less  for  her  labor  than 
we  do,  the  duty  on  one  ton  pig-iron  should  be  87.65. 

I congratulate  you  on  your  management  of  the  revenue,  and  hope  you 
will  effectually  stop  all  undervaluations.  I believe  that  when  you 
honest  Democrats  examine  the  tariff  question  in  all  its  bearings  you 
will  be  stronger  protectionists  than  we  Republicans.  You  cannot  get 
votes  unless  you  favor  protection,  because  the  laborer  now  knows  that 
free  trade  means  low  wages  or  foreign  goods. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

HORACE  L.  BROOKE, 

President. 


[The  same.] 

Baltimore,  August  19, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury : 

My  Dear  Sir:  In  response  to  your  request  of  July  17  I herewith 
give  you  cost  of  1 ton  of  charcoal  pig-iron  in  Baltimore : 


Ore  per  ton  iron $8  75 

Flux  (lime) 50 

Wood 8 00 

Labor  at  furnace  only 3 00 

Contingent  expenses 1 50 

Interest,  managing,  taxes,  &c 1 00 


22  75 

Of  the  above,  820.75  is  labor  or  its  equivalent,  as  the  natural  values 
are,  3 cords  wood  on  the  stump,  81.50,  and  2J  tons  ore  in  the  ground, 
worth  50  cents ; and  as  Spain,  the  only  country  that  sends  charcoal  pig- 
iron  to  this  country,  pays  less  than  half  what  we  pay  for  labor,  the  tariff 
on  1 ton  charcoal  pig-iron  should  be  810. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

HORACE  L.  BROOKE,  * 

President. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


409 


[E.  L.  Harper  & Co.,  pig-iron  and  ores.'] 

Cincinnati,  August  16, 1885. 

Sir  : Replying  to  your  esteemed  circular  letter  of  4th  instant,  solicit- 
ing views  and  suggestions  as  to  reforms  in  the  tariff,  we  beg  to  say  that 
we  are  interested  directly  in  pig-iron  and  ores  oidy,  the  duties  upon 
which  are  specific,  and  in  our  judgment  adequate  and  satisfactory  to 
the  American  people,  and  we  trust  will  not  be  disturbed. 

Yery  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

E.  L.  HARPER  & CO. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury  United  States , Washington , D.  G. 


[Lobdell  Car  Wheel  Company,  car  wheels , pig-iron , <$'C.] 

Wilmington,  Del.,  August  28,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  asking  for  information  in  rela- 
tion to  the  tariff  laws,  I would  say: 

First.  That  I think  it  very  important  that  all  duties  should  be  specific; 
and  if  they  are  so  levied  I believe  that  much  trouble  and  expense  in  col- 
lecting them  will  be  saved  and  much  fraud  be  prevented. 

Second.  The  largest  part  of  our  business  is  in  the  manufacture  of 
chilled  railroad  wheels,  chilled  rolls,  and  castiugs  of  iron  and  brass. 

These  do  not  come  in  competition  with  like  articles  made  in  other 
countries ; hence  we  are  not  directly  interested  in  the  amount  of  duties 
imposed  on  this  class  of  articles.  We  are,  however,  indirectly  inter- 
ested in  the  general  prosperity  of  the  country,  which  prosperity  regu- 
lates the  demand  for  our  products.  This  demand  is  always  greater  and 
the  prices  more  remunerative  when  the  country  is  prosperous  and  the 
finances  of  the  country  are  in  a sound  condition,  with  the  balance  of 
trade  in  favor  of  the  United  States.  The  prosperity  of  the  agriculturist, 
the  manufacturer,  the  artisan,  the  mercantile  and  all  other  classes,  and 
a sound  condition  of  the  finances  of  the  country,  cannot,  in  my  opinion, 
be  maintained  without  liberal  protection  on  all  articles  that  can  be 
grown  or  made  in  this  country.  I believe  that  the  stability  and  perpe- 
tuity of  the  Republic  depends  on  the  intelligence  and  prosperity  of  the 
American  laborer.  I am,  therefore,  in  favor  of  such  rates  of  duties  as 
will  enable  the  people  of  this  country  to  produce  or  manufacture  every- 
thing that  our  soil,  climate,  forests,  mines,  and  manufactories  are  capa- 
ble of  producing,  and  this,  too,  without  being  compelled  to  reduce  the 
compensation  of  the  laborer  of  the  country  to  the  low  rate  paid  in  other 
countries. 

This  company  also  manufactures  charcoal  pig-iron,  which  is  used  in 
making  railroad  wheels  and  chilled  rolls.  This  product  comes  into  di- 
rect competition  with  charcoal  pig-iron  made  in  Austria,  Italy,  Spain, 
and  Sweden,  and  should  be  protected.  A large  portion  of  the  cost  of 
a ton  of  pig-iron  is  for  labor — labor  in  cutting  and  coaling  the  wood, 
mining  the  ore,  hauling  the  coal  and  ore,  and  in  smelting  the  ore.  In 
view  of  this  fact,  and  considering  the  great  difference  between  the  cost 
of  labor  in  this  country  and  that  in  European  countries,  I think  that 
there  should  be  a duty  of  not  less  than  $10  per  ton  on  all  pig-iron  im- 
ported that  is  smelted  with  charcoal. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

GEORGE  G.  LOBDELL, 

President. 


410  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[William Paulsen,  lead.] 

New  York,  August  13,  1885. 

Treasury  Department, 

Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  Learning  that  your  Department  is  desirous  of  receiving  some 
information  about  the  position  of  lead  in  the  United  States,  I beg  to 
submit  the  following  facts.  Four  fifths  of  the  lead  production  of  the 
United  States  is  produced  as  a bi  product  of  silver,  of  which  large 
quantities  are  used  for  trade  dollars’  worth.  Our  lead  production  of 
late  years  amounted  to  about  130,000  tons;  of  this  about  70,000  tons  is 
used  for  the  manufacture  of  paint,  yielding  a production  of  about  84,000 
tons  of  white  lead,  on  which  we  have  an  import  duty  of  3 cents  per 
pound,  amounting  to  $5,644,800,  a tax  which  is  paid  principally  by 
people  living  in  wooden  structures,  thus  the  middle  or  poorer  classes. 
The  duty  on  lead  for  other  purposes  is  2 cents  per  pound,  thus  on  60,000 
tons  amounting  to  $2,688,000 ; thus  we  have  an  annual  tax  on  lead  of 
$8,332,800,  with  no  benefit  to  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  because 
what  little  we  receive  from  foreign  lands,  about  3,000  tons  per  annum, 
is  principally  used  by  the  Standard  Oil  Company  for  soldering  of  oii 
cans,  and  the  duty  refunded  when  exported. 

Another  serious  effect  of  the  high  duty  on  lead  experienced  by  our 
Eastern  factories  is  that  the  Western  factories,  being  so  much  nearer 
the  source  of  supply,  can  manufacture  white  lead  so  much  cheaper  than 
the  Eastern  factories,  and  not  being  contented  with  their  home  markets 
for  the  sale  of  white  lead,  they  flood  the  Eastern  markets  with  their 
surplus  at  such  low  prices  as  to  make  competition  of  Eastern  factories 
impossible;  thus  it  is  not  only  the  consumer  of  lead  products  who  is 
taxed  to  the  amount  of  $8,332,800  per  annum,  but  millions  of  dollars 
invested  in  lead  works  become  almost  worthless,  and  all  this  apparently 
for  the  benefit  of  our  silver  kings  only. 

Very  respectfully, 

WM.  PAULSEN. 


[The  Colwell  Lead  Company,  pig-lead.] 

New  York,  August  4,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  United  States  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir:  In  repl3T  to  your  favor  of  July  31,  we  beg  leave  to  say 
that  we  favor  ad  valorem  duties  for  Government  protection,  and  believe 
them  more  equitable  to  importers  generally  than  specific.  The  princi- 
pal article  in  which  we  are  interested  is  pig-lead,  which  pays  a specific 
duty  of  2 cents  per  pound,  altogether  too  high.  It  can  be  laid  down  in 
New  York  to-day  at  2.80  cents  per  pound,  and  has  within  six  months 
been  delivered  at  our  docks  at  2.40  cents.  The  duties  on  pig  lead,  old 
lead,  scrap  lead,  and  lead  dross  could  be  reduced  one-half  with  advan- 
tage both  to  producers  and  consumers.  As  it  stands  now  it  is  only  ben- 
eficial to  speculators  who  are  interested  in  getting  up  “corners”  on 
domestic  lead. 

Respectfully, 

Colwell  Lead  Company, 
JOHN  HOOPER, 


President. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


411 


[The  Indianapolis  Rolling  Mill  Company,  railroad  iron.  J 

Indianapolis,  Ind.,  August  11,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  You  ask  me  for  my  views  on  the  tariff  question,  and  briefly 
I will  say  that  I claim  to  know  but  little  of  the  subject.  In  my  judg- 
ment our  laws  should  be  revised  and  changed  to  suit  new  values  and 
times  and  new  wants,  and  principally  because  the  specific  system  is  the 
more  easily  assessed  and  administered,  is  the  best  adapted  in  most  all 
cases  to  a country  like  ours. 

The  tariff  in  a large  number  of  cases  should  be  lowered.  Possibly  in 
a few  cases  it  should  be  advanced.  It  would  not  do  at  all  now  to  adopt 
the  present  old  tariff  laws  and  lower  the  duty  by  a fixed  per  cent.,  as 
proposed  by  Mr.  Morrison,  of  Illinois,  last  year. 

Our  people  are  industrious,  ingenious,  and  thrifty.  Ne.w  methods  and 
inventions  have  in  many  cases  lowered  values.  What  was  perhaps 
good  tariff  law  a few  years  ago  is  not  now ; and  good  tariff  law  to-day 
may  not  be  a few  years  hence.  Protection  in  many  cases  is  no  longer 
a necessity,  as  in  former  times;  therefore  I repeat,  it  would  be  wise  for 
the  next  Congress  to  revise  and  simplify  carefully  our  tariff  laws,  and 
the  duties  wherever  applicable  should  be  made  specific  in  preference  to 
ad  valorem. 

I have  been  engaged  for  many  years  in  the  manufacture  of  railroad 
rails,  and  my  observation  has  been  principally  confined  to  iron  and 
steel  and  the  products  thereof. 

The  rail  business  has  been  seriously  depressed  for  two  years  past,  but 
it  cannot  be  attributed  to  evasion  of  the  tariff  law. 

With  high  regard,  I am,  respectfully,  yours, 

AQUILLA  JONES, 

President  Indianapolis  Bolling  Mill  Company. 


[Robert  Friedrichs,  Bessemer  steel  rods.] 

New  York,  October  29,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington , I).  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  As  you  will  notice  in  the  annexed  original  letter  of  the 
Societe  Commereiale  Beige,  of  Charleroi,  Belgium,  the  price  of  Besse- 
mer steel  rods  is  the  same  for  the  Nos.  5 and  6 wire-gauge,  i.  e ., 
£4  16s.  per  ton,  f.  o.  b.,  Antwerp  (per  ton  2,240  pounds).  On  importing 
them,  the  writer  was  informed  yesterday  by  Mr.  L.  McMullen,  ap- 
praiser, that  the  duties  on  the  No.  5 are  0.6  cent  per  pound ; on  the  No.  6, 
45  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  ton  equals  2,240  pounds ; at  0.6  cent  per 
pound  will  be  $13.44  per  ton.  The  ton  at  £4  16s.,  less  2J  per  cent., 
£4  13s.  6 tf. ; at  $4.8665,  $22.87 ; at  45  per  cent.,  $10.29  per  ton. 

To  illustrate,  to  make  clear,  there  is  not  as  much  difference  between 
the  two  sizes  as  there  is  between  the  two  fingers  next  to  the  middle 
finger  of  your  hand,  and  it  is  the  same  material,  and  the  same  weight 
of  the  one  has  to  pay  $13.44  and  of  the  other  $10.29  as  duties.  All  that 
difference  is  duties,  over  $3  per  ton,  for  a hair’s  difference,  so  to  say, 
in  size  on  one  and  the  same  article.  Notice,  please,  that  the  two  wires, 
being  of  the  same  weight,  cost  in  Europe  the  same  price. 

As  it  is  desirable  to  bring  into  a consistent  whole  the  various  anom- 


412  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

alies  of  the  present  tariff  (of  which  this  is  one),  I therefore  submit  this 
for  your  consideration,  at  the  same  time  asking  information  from  the 
Department  should  I be  iu  error  as  to  the  two  different  duties,  so  that 
I may  inform  my  friends  abroad. 

Please  to  return  to  me  the  original  letter  of  the  Sochi  te  Commerciale. 
Yery  respectfully,  your  obedient ’teervant, 

ROBERT  FRIEDRICHS. 


[The  Passaic  Rolling  Mill  Company,  iron  and  steel.'] 

Paterson,  K J.,  August  25, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury: 

Dear  Sir  : Your  circular  is  duly  received.  The  import  duty  on  iron 
and  steel  must  of  necessity  be  a specific  one  instead  of  ad  valorem. 

By  reason  of  the  competition  between  home  manufacturers,  whose 
works  have  been  built  up  under  the  fostering  care  of  our  tariff  system, 
prices  are  kept  on  an  equitable  footing,  and  unquestionably  very  much 
lower  than  if  we  were  dependent  on  a foreign-supply. 

Sound  wisdom  would  be  displayed  by  the  administration  and  by  Con- 
gress if  the  tariff  subject  was  let  entirely  alone. 

An  assurance  that  no  tinkering  with  present  tariff  provision,  be  they 
good,  bad,  or  indifferent,  for  a period  of  years,  would  go  further  to- 
wards a revival  of  our  industries  than  anything  1 can  think  of  in  con- 
nection with  them. 

Yery  respectfully, 

W.  O.  FAYERWEATHER, 

Vice-President. 


[The  American  Nickel  Works,  nickel,  cobalt  oxide,  fc.] 

Camden,  Y.  J.,  October  29,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : Answering  your  circular  letter  calling  for  information 
and  suggestions  concerning  tariff  rates  upon  manufactured  goods,  I pre- 
mise that  nickel,  cobalt  oxide,  and  blue  vitriol  are  the  only  important 
products  of  this  establishment,  and  that  I think  it  inexpedient  to  expose 
such  trade  secrets  as  the  cost  of  manufacture. 

Nickel. — The  duty  upon  nickel  was  reduced  in  1883  to  one  half  its 
former  rate  (viz.,  to  15  cents  per  pound),  under  circumstances  alluded 
to  in  the  printed  statement  seut  herewith,  to  which  I refer.  The  range 
of  duties  upon  other  metals  is  about  40  per  cent,  to  50  per  cent.;  apply- 
ing the  lowest  of  these  rates  to  the  foreign  price  of  nickel  would  produce 
about  25  cents  per  pound.  I therefore  suggest  for  “nickel,  nickel  oxide, 
and  alloy  of  any  kind  in  which  nickel  is  the  element  of  chief  value,”  the 
duty  of  25  cents  per  pouud.  NTickel  in  ore  and  in  matte  or  other  crude 
form  should  obviously  pay  lower  duty  than  in  its  completed  form  as 
metal  (as  is  the  case  with  all  other  metals),  though  at  present  nickel 
material  is  charged  the  same  duty  as  the  product.  I suggest  as  proper 
rates  on  “nickel  iu  ore,  5 cents  per  pound  on  the  nickel  contained  there- 
in,” and  on  “ nickel  in  matte,  or  other  crude  form  not  ready  for  con- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


413 


sumption  in  the  arts,  10  cents  per  pound  on  the  nickel  contained  there- 
in.’7 

Cobalt  oxide,  a coloring  material  used  principally  by  potters  and  glass- 
makers,  now  pays  20  per  cent.  duty.  It  should  pay  a specific  duty  pro- 
portionate to  duties  upon  other  similar  substances,  say  30  per  cent,  upon 
the  foreign  cost,  which  would  equal  about  60  cents  perpouud. 

I therefore  suggest  on  u cobalt  oxide  60  cents  per  pound.”  Cobalt  ore, 
now  free,  stands  almost  alone,  and  was  long  ago  put  on  the  free  list,  be- 
cause of  its  supposed  non  existence  in  this  country.  There  is,  however, 
no  lack  of  cobalt  ore  in  the  United  States,  and  consistency  seems  to  re- 
quire a moderate  duty  upon  it.  I therefore  suggest  on  “ cobalt  in  ore”  or 
other  crude  form  not  ready  for  consumption  in  the  arts  10  cents  per 
pound  on  the  cobalt  contained  therein. 

Blue  vitriol  now  is  subjected  to  a duty  of  3 cents  per  pound,  which  is, 
in  my  judgment,  higher  than  is  necessary. 

I suggest  on  “blue  vitriol,  2 cents  per  pound.” 

Yours,  trulv, 

JOSEPH  WHARTON. 

Note. — The  u printed  statement  ” mentioned  will  he  transmitted  seper- 
ately  to  Congress. 


[The  Osborne  & Cheesman  Company.] 

Ansonia,  Conn.,  July  31,  1885. 

Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.  : 

Dear  Sir:  Replying  to  your  circular,  will  say,  first,  we  are  strongly 
in  favor  of  high  tariff*.  Would  make  it  prohibitory,  but  no  party  could 
stand  that  advocated  it.  Therefore  we  would  lower  the  duties  when  it 
would  not  affect  labor,  capital,  and  the  Government  revenue.  In  our 
metal  line  the  country  exports,  say,  five  million  per  month  of  copper  and 
matte.  While  these  mines  were  being  developed  high  duty  was  nec- 
essary. It  is  now  4 cents  a pound  on  copper.  It  will  be  good  policy,  in 
the  interest  of  protection,  to  lower  the  duty  to  1 cent,  or  even  place  it 
on  free  list. 

On  nickel  a high  duty  has  failed  to  develop  but  one  nickel  mine,  and 
there  is  still  $100  a ton  duty.  We  have  to  use  for  German  silver  an 
alloy  of  copper  with  nickel.  At  present  the  alloy  is  taxed  at  same  rate 
as  pure  nickel.  It  should  only  be  taxed  for  the  nickel  and  copper  sep- 
arately. As  no  mines  are  likely  to  be  developed  by  further  protection, 
and  the  foreign  price  being  about  50  cents  a pound,  and  being  in  nature 
of  raw  material,  5 cents  a pound  should  be  enough  duty. 

We  buy  all  our  yarns.  We  think,  however,  that  the  duty  should  not 
be  lowered.  But  the  duty  on  goods  made  of  glazed  yarns,  such  as  hat 
bands,  should  be  materially  increased,  as  the  duty  seems  to  be  less  than 
the  duty  on  the  yarns. 

Duty  should  be  partly  specific  to  prevent  frauds.  We  have  about 
$200,000  invested  in  metals  and  $100,000  in  textiles. 

Respectfully, 


Osborne  & Cheesman  Company. 


414  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

[The  Scovil  Manufacturing  Company,  brass  manufactures .] 

The  business  of  the  Scovill  Manufacturing  Company  is  primarily  the 
manufacture  of  wrought  or  rolled  brass. 

Brass  is  an  alloy  of  copper  and  zinc.  (Zinc  in  slabs  is  known  in  com- 
merce and  in  our  business  as  “spelter.”)  This  alloy  varies  from  60  per 
cent,  copper  to  40  per  cent,  spelter  to  a mixture  containing  not  more 
than  3 to  4 per  cent,  of  spelter. 

Brass  is  worked  cold,  and  cannot  well  be  worked  hotj  but  pure  cop- 
per is  usually  worked  hot,  as  is  also  a lower  alloy  of  these  same  metals 
known  as  “yellow  metal,”  and  used  for  ship  sheathing,  and  containing 
50  per  cent,  or  more  of  spelter. 

The  spelter  is  sometimes  partially  or  wholly  replaced  by  tin.  When 
wholly  replaced  thus  the  alloy  is  known  as  “bronze.” 

These  various  alloys  have  trade  names  more  or  less  descriptive,  as 
“high  brass,”  “low  brass,”  “gilding  metal,”  “oreide,”  “plater’s  brass,” 
&c. 

None  of  these  define  or  limit  the  composition  accurately,  there  being 
many  grades  of  alloy  suited  to  various  purposes,  and  all  grouped  under 
a few  general  names. 

There  are  also  various  conditions  of  the  product  which  are  purely 
mechanical,  and  have  designations,  such  as  “hard,”  “half-hard,”  “soft,” 
“black,”  “bright,”  “spring,”  &c. 

The  manufacture  of  german  silver,  sometimes  called  “nickel  silver,” 
is  an  adjunct  of  the  sheet-brass  business,  the  composition  being  the 
same,  with  an  addition  of  from  4 to  25  per  cent,  of  nickel.  The  manu- 
facture of  wire  and  tubing  is  usually,  but  not  always,  connected  with 
that  of  brass. 

The  manufacture  of  brass  as  such  is  considered  as  complete  when  it 
is  rolled  into  sheets,  and  in  this  condition  it  is  sent  to  market. 

A portion  of  it  is  used  in  sheets  of  same  size  for  such  purposes  as 
locomotive  bands,  sign-plates,  &c.,  but  by  far  the  greater  part  is  re- 
manufactured, and  of  itself  constitutes  a “raw  material”  for  other 
industries. 

This  company,  as  well  as  most  others  in  the  business,  not  ouly  manu- 
factures brass,  german  silver,  and  wire,  but  remanufactures  these  into 
many  other  articles.  There  are  staple  articles,  such  as  kerosene-oil 
burners,  lamps,  brass  hinges,  buttons,  &c.,  which  are  made  year  after 
year  with  only  such  changes  as  the  market  may  demand.  But  in  addi- 
tion to  staple  goods  of  this  sort,  orders  are  continually  received  for 
limited  amounts  of  every  variety  of  article  into  which  sheet  brass  can 
be  made,  amounting  in  the  number  of  articles  on  our  list  to  thousands. 
Orders  of  this  sort  we  are  always  ready  to  fill,  provided  the  quantity 
desired  and  the  price  are  such  as  to  make  it  an  object. 

The  copper  used  is  mostly  American,  and  the  market  price  is  variable, 
being  at  present  from  11  to  11£  cents  per  pound.  The  spelter  is  part 
Americau,  worth  6 to  8 cents,  and  part  foreign  (mostly  Silesian),  worth 
4^  to  5 cents. 

Both  American  and  foreign  nickel  are  used.  The  present  price  is 
about  75  cents  per  pound.  The  tin  is  foreign,  and  worth  about  18  to 
20  cents. 

In  the  process  of  manufacture  the  alloy  is  cast  into  ingots  and  rolled 
to  the  desired  thickness,  which  varies  from  an  inch  to  that  of  tissue 
paper,  requiring  in  the  one  case  two  or  three  rollings  and  in  the  other 
twenty  or  thirty. 

It  will  be  seen  that  no  very  definite  statement  of  cost  can  be  given. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


415 


but  the  expense  of  bringing  the  bar  to  its  finished  state  (not  including 
the  cost  of  the  alloy  itself)  probably  ranges  from  3 cents  to  12  cents  per 

pound. 

The  wages  of  the  men  employed  at  this  work,  some  of  which  is  done 
by  the  piece  or  pound,  vary  from  $1.25per  day  to  $4,  or  even  more  in 
case  of  piece-work  requiring  considerable  skill. 

The  materials  consumed  are  coal,  wood,  crucibles,  oil,  acids,  iron,  fire- 
brick and  fire  clay,  cotton  waste,  tow,  sundry  fluxes,  &c.  To  these  ex- 
penses are  to  be  added,  transportation,  packing,  superintendence,  waste 
in  process,  insurance,  repairs,  and  interest  on  plant. 

A mill  capable  of  producing  3,000,000  pounds  per  annum,  with  all  the 
necessary  conveniences,  will  cost  approximately  $150,000  to  $200,000, 
and  the  stock  to  be  carried,  say  $50,000  more,  giving  employment  to 
about  150  men,  and  requiring  250  to  300  horse  power.  Water  was  for- 
merly used,  but  now  steam  is  mostly  relied  upou. 

The  foregoing  is  intended  as  a reply  to  the  first  three  inquiries. 

4.  It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  that  there  is  great  difficulty  in 
fixing  a specific  duty  on  products  of  this  sort,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  technical  terminology  sufficiently  descriptive  and  sufficiently 
limited  in  its  application  to  describe  the  articles  or  the  condition  they 
are  in  with  reference  to  costot  production,  for  the  reason  that  the  same 
name  is  given  in  the  trade  to  a finished  product  in  many  different 
conditions,  and  varying  very  largely  in  value.  If  we  considered  the 
case  of  the  remanufactured  goods  the  same  difficulty  will  be  even  more 
apparent.  Take,  for  example,  metal  buttons.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
give  a more  specific  class  name,  and  yet  this  company  manufacture 
metal  buttons  each  of  which  contain  three  or  more  pieces,  and  which 
sell  for  7 cents  per  gross,  while  other  metal  buttons  containing  only  two 
parts  sell  for  $15  per  gross,  or  even  more. 

An  expert  might,  perhaps,  point  out  a few  cases,  such  as  of  wire 
drawn  beyond  a specified  degree  of  fiueness,  or  German  silver  contain- 
ing more  than  a specified  per  cent,  of  nickel,  and  perhaps  a few  others, 
in  which  a specific  duty  might  be  applied  with  good  result;  but  in  most- 
cases  the  application  of  these  rules  would  probably  be  too  difficult  to 
render  them  desirable. 

So  far  as  I can  now  see,  this  difficulty  of  finding  specific  description 
which  shall  convey  any  just  idea  of  value  seems  to  apply  to  everything 
in  our  department  of  manufacture. 

(5)  The  manufacture  of  sheet- brass  is  the  leading  industry  of  the 
Naugatuck  Yalley,  and  Waterbury  is  the  place  where  the  business  was 
first  established,  and  is  still  its  most  important  center. 

It  is  22  miles  by  the  nearest  road  to  water  carriage  (New  Haven), 
and  from  about  1830,  when  the  business  first  began  to  develop,  until 
1849,  when  the  Naugatuck  Railroad  was  opened,  all  transportation  was 
by  wagon,  over  country  roads.  This  would  seem  to  be  a fatal  obstacle 
ni  a business  requiring  so  much  heavy  freight — and  at  the  present  time 
perhaps  it  would;  but  it  is  the  experience  of  all  manufacturers  that  a 
business  thrives  best  where  most  of  it  is  done.  The  whole  community 
becomes  to  some  extent  educated  to  that  business,  all  collateral  facili- 
ties group  themselves  about  it,  and  these  adjuncts  compensate  for  many 
disadvantages.  The  brass  business  of  the  Naugatuck  Yalley  was  es- 
tablished by  great  exertion  and  in  the  face  of  serious  difficulties  such 
as  new  enterprises  at  this  day  seldom  encounter;  but  when  it  was  once 
established,  the  reasons  above  named  probably  enabled  it  to  continue 
its  hold  here  in  spite  of  seemingly  unfavorable  circumstances. 

The  character  of  labor  required  iu  the  manufacture  of  metal  goods  is 


416  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

believed  to  be,  as  a rule,  of  a higher  grade,  more  intelligent,  more  skilled, 
more  permanent  than  most  of  that  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  the 
woven  fabrics.  In  this  valley  wages  have  been  uniformly  good,  labor- 
ers prosperous,  largely  the  owners  of  their  own  homes — a very  desirable 
feature  in  all  industrial  communities. 

Taxes  here  are  heavy  (about  27  mills  on  the  dollar  on  a rather  mod- 
erate valuation,  say  three-fourths),  as  is  apt  to  be  the  case  in  growing 
towns,  and  the  bulk  of  them  are  paid  by  the  manufacturing  corpora- 
tions, as  they  represent  the  aggregated  capital. 

We  have  sometimes  believed  that  some  goods  sold  in  competition 
with  our  own  came  into  the  country  at  a lower  rate  of  duty  than  they 
ought  on  account  of  failure  to  distinguish  among  goods  of  the  same  gen- 
eral name  those  of  higher  cost ; but  for  the  most  part  these  difficulties 
could  hardly  be  reached  by  specific  duties,  and  so  far  as  we  know  the 
extent  of  them  is  not  great. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

SCOVILL  MANUFACTURING  COMPANY. 


[Simpson,  Hall,  Miller  & Co.,  electro-plated  ware.] 

Wallingford,  Conn.,  August  10,  1885. 
Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Secretary : 

Dear  Sir  : Your  circular  in  relation  to  laying  duties  on  imports,  ad- 
dressed to  our  firm,  was  duly  received  and  carefully  read.  In  response 
we  will  say  that  we  both  import  and  export,  and  we  have  rather  fa  vored 
the  ad  valorem  plan  to  the  specific  as  a rule,  and  our  reason  is  that  we 
have  thought  the  ad  valorem  plan  is  the  fairest  and  simplest — the 
fairest,  because  those  who  indulge  in  the  most  costly  articles  are  likely 
to  pay  a fairer  proportion  of  taxes  towards  the  support  of  our  Govern- 
ment, there  being  so  many  qualities  of  goods  that  the  specific  plan  is 
made  more  difficult.  Yet  we  do  not  set  ourselves  up  as  critics,  and  are 
unable  to  follow  the  details  of  articles  to  say  how  one  should  bear  to 
the  other.  In  regard  to  importers  evading  the  laws,  our  opinion  is  that 
much  depends  on  efficient  and  faithful  men  in  charge  of  customs,  and 
those  who  are  not  willing  tools  in  the  hands  of  importers  ; and  when  a 
rogue  is  detected,  see  to  it  that  he  suffers  the  penalty  according  to  the 
law. 

Very  respectfully, 

SIMPSON,  HALL,  MILLER  & CO. 

S. 


[Naylor  & Co.,  iron  and  steel.] 

New  York,  August  1, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , Z).  G. : 

Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  letter  of  the  31st  ultimo,  we  have  the 
honor  to  state  that  on  principle  we  prefer  specific  to  ad  valorem  duties, 
but  in  the  articles  in  which  we  deal,  metals,  we  have  not  experienced 
injury  from  undervaluations  by  others,  and  we  do  not  see  how  any 
serious  undervaluations  could  possibly  take  place  without  discovery. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


417 


We  have  suffered  rather  more  from  the  ignorance  of  consuls  and  local 
appraisers,  who  have  been  very  arbitrary  in  their  action  in  raising  values. 

That  the  whole  tariff  schedule  on  iron  and  steel  is  in  a sad  state  of  in- 
congruity, and  that  the  duties  now  levied  are  unreasonably  high,  with 
very  slight  exceptions,  admits  of  no  doubt,  but  inasmuch  as  we  are,  as 
importers,  interested  in  having  duties  low,  a schedule  such  as  you  pro- 
pose we  should  furnish  as  to  the  rates  of  specific  duty  which,  in  our 
opinion,  should  be  levied,  &c.,  would  naturally  strike  you  as  beiug  made 
from  a personal  and  not  from  a national  interest,  so  that  we  should 
rather  forego  the  privilege  you  kiudly  offer  us.  What  we  would,  how- 
ever, say,  and  in  that  we  think  the  majority  of  those  either  in  favor  of 
protection  or  free  trade  would  bear  us  out,  is  that  constant  changes  are 
to  be  deprecated,  and  we  infinitely  prefer  the  present  incongruous  tariff 
to  the  prospect  of  doubt  and  uncertainty  as  to  what  changes  are  likely 
to  take  place. 

Should  you  at  any  time  desire  our  personal  views,  we  shall  be  happy 
to  wait  upon  you  at  Washington. 

We  are,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

NAYLOR  & CO. 


[Tlie  American  Bronze  Powder  Manufacturing  Company,  bronze  powder.] 


New  York,  August  30,  1885. 


Hon.  Daniel  Mannings, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Most  Honorable  Sir  : In  compliance  with  your  request,  as  per  cir- 
cular of  August  1, 1885,  we  take  great  pleasure  in  laying  before  you  such 
facts  as  we  are  able  to  serve  you  with,  and  with  your  kind  permission 
will  submit  to  you  our  explanations  in  as  detailed  a form  as  possible, 
hoping  that  your  earnest  endeavors  to  correct  many  of  the  evils  of  our 
present  tariff  will  be  productive  of  much  good  to  every  honest  importer, 
manufacturer,  and  dealer,  and  be  a crowning  glory  to  the  present  ad- 
ministration. 

Our  business — that  of  manufacturing  bronze  powder — is  a young  en- 
terprise in  this  country,  and  our  present  corporation  is  so  far  the  only 
one  jiow  in  operation.  But  were  it  not  for  some  special  machinery  in- 
vented by  ourselves,  and  now  in  use  by  our  company,  we  cannot  but 
admit  that  competing  with  foreign  cheap  labor  and  possible  practiced 
undervaluation  we  would  be  compelled  to  succumb  with  some  other  do- 
mestic manufacturers  now  out  of  existence,  and  for  the  subjoined  reasons : 
Our  productions,  bronze-powders,  are  most  difficult  to  judge,  except  by 
an  expert,  and  we  deem  it  safe  to  assert  that  not  more  than  five  or  six 
actual  expert  judges  could  be  found  in  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Chicago, 
and  Boston,  from  which  cities  more  than  nine-tenths  of  these  goods  are  dis- 
tributed. How  easy,  then,  for  some  unscrupulous  importer  to  evade  the 
import  duty,  now  only  15  per  cent,  ai  valorem.  It  is  a known  fact  that 
a very  great  proportion  of  bronze  powder  is  now  sold  from  at  42  to  70 
cents  per  pound,  which  cannot  be  produced  here  where  the  best  copper 
is  mined  and  marketed,  unless  sold  at  an  actual  loss.  The  principal 
factories  for  these  articles  are  located  in  Fiirth  and  Niirnberg,  in  Bava- 
ria, and  some  smaller  villages  in  that  region,  where  labor  is  so  very 
much  cheaper  than  here,  that  it  may  be  called  pauper  labor,  indeed, 
as  per  following  schedule  of  wages  both  here  and  in  Europe : 


S.  Ex.  72 27 


418  REPORT  OE  THE  SECRETARY  OE  THE  TREASURY. 


Table  of  wages  in  Europe  and  ike  United  States. 


Occupation. 

Wages  in 
Europe. 

Occupation. 

Wages  in 
United 
States. 

1 foreman 

Marks. 

60 

40 

40 

35 

35 

20 

80 

30 

24 

72 

24 

24 

30 

1 foreman 

$25  00 
26  00 
15  00 
24  00 
9 00 
36  00 
9 00 
9 00 
10  00 
12  00 
36  00 
10  00 

1 beater 

1 beater 

Do 

Do 

Do 

2 beaters  at  $12 

Do 

1 bc<it©r 

Do  

4 rollers  at  $9 

4 rollers,  at  20 

1 heater 

1 beater  

1 smelter 

2 stretchers,  at  12 

2 stretchers,  at,  $5 

C scourers,  at  12 

2 hangers  at $6 

2 layers,  at  12 

6 scourers,  at  $6 

2 hangers,  at  12 

2 layers  at  $5 

1 smelter 

For  60  working  hours  per  week  . . 

For  72  working  hours  per  week. . . 

211  00 

514 

Figuring  on  the  scale  of  producing  1,000  pounds  of  metal  per  week, 
requiring  twenty-four  different  hands  for  72  working  hours,  1,200  pounds 
the  mark  at  24  cents,  or  10J  cents  per  pound;  for  60  working  hours, 
1,000  pounds,  217  cents  per  pound;  for  60  working  hours,  1,000 pounds, 
21.1  cents  per  pound. 

BRONZE  POWDER. 

Ten  men,  200  marks,  for  72  working  hours,  1,2C0  pounds ; ten  men,  $85 ; for  GO  work- 
ing hours,  1,000  pounds. 

As  24  men  are  required  to  work  60  hours  to  produce  1,000  pounds  of 
prime  metal,  you  will  perceive  how  great  the  difference  in  wages,  and 
when  the  material  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  bronze  powder  is 
chiefly  copper,  about  66  to  90  per  cent.,  and  spelter  about  34  to  4 per 
cent,  as  to  quality  and  color,  it  becomes  evident  at  once  that  more  than 
75  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  producing  the  bronze  powder  consists  of  labor, 
the  labor  of  our  wage-workers,  which  ought  to  be  protected  from  the 
cheap  foreign  labor,  and  this  can  only  be  done,  in  our  humble  opinion, 
by  a specific  duty  of,  say,  25  to  30  cents  per  pound  on  all  manufactured 
bronze  powder  of  each  and  every  description.  This  is  one  of  the  many 
cases  where  discrepancies  as  to  just  duties  were  allowed  to  exist,  and  per- 
mit us  to  say  here,  most  honorable  Mr.  Secretary,  were  allowed  to  exist 
knowingly,  for  we  were  represented  before  the  late  Tariff  Commissfbn  by 
a w ritten  statement,  and  our  president,  Mr.  H.  Ahlborn,  who  laid  before 
the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  all  the  facts  in  the  most  minute  de- 
tails, calling  the  attention  of  the  Hon.  Messrs.  McKinley,  of  Ohio,  Mc- 
Pherson, of  T^ew  Jersey,  and  S.  Randall,  of  Pennsylvania,  showing  them 
where,  under  the  then  existing  tariff,  the  raw  material  had  a duty  im- 
posed at  from  30  to  45  per  cent.,  and  the  manufactured  article  there- 
from bronze  powder,  the  small  import  duty  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
since  changed  to  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  although  recommended  by 
the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  to  25  per  cent,  (see  report  on  tariff 
bill  by  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  page  40,  Forty-seventh  Con- 
gress, second  session)  recommended  to  be  changed  to  25  per  cent. 

When  these  able  and  honorable  gentlemen  left  unheeded  our  claims* 
and  protests,  yet  acknowledging  the  injustice  of  such  discrimination 
against  native  labor,  they  signally  demonstrated  that  in  some  instances 
protection  fails  to  protect  when  it  is  aimed  against  actual  home  labor 
instead  of  the  raw  material,  and  finally  the  result  of  this  now  existing 
evil  of  discrimination  against  labor. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


419 


We  erected  during  1880-’81,  at  considerable  outlay,  a factory  with 
requisite  machinery  to  produce  all  our  materials  required  at  home,  and 
from  the  product  of  American  mines,  employing  many  skilled  and  un- 
skilled men,  youths,  and  womeu.  We  are  at  present  not  enabled  to 
employ  many  of  them,  as  the  tariff  prohibits  it,  we  may  be  allowed 
to  say,  and  are  again  compelled  to  rely  for  part  of  our  wants  upon  the 
inferior  material  of  Germany;  for. these  manufacturers  have  the  chance 
now  of  entering  metal  leaf  at  10  per  cent,  duty,  the  material  of  which 
must  of  necessity  be  of  the  very  finest  beaten  metal— the  very  heart  or 
best  substance  of  the  same — and  we  can  only  buy  their  refuse  or  cut- 
tings therefrom,  fit  for  nothing  else  than  bronze  powder  or  resmelting, 
and  were  it  not  for  the  only  advantage  we  possess  over  them — superior 
machinery — we  would  be  compelled  to  abandon  the  business  altogether. 

That  European  manufacturers  have  been  sharp  enough  in  this  line  to 
have  their  representatives  here  of  their  own  direct  household — such  as 
sons,  brothers,  or  relations— is  in  itself  an  important  factor  to  enable 
them  to  elude  the  watchfulness  of  the  custom-house  authorities,  taking- 
in  consideration  the  difficulty  of  appraising  the  article  we  herein  men- 
tioned. 

As  an  earnest  of  our  intention  and  the  reliability  of  our  statement  we 
would  most  respectfully  refer  you,  as  to  our  character  and  business 
standing,  to  G.  G.  Williams,  president  of  Chemical  National  Bank,  New 
York;  Messrs.  T.  W.  Devoe  & Co.,  New  York;  Messrs.  Wadsworth, 
Howland,  & Co.,  of  Boston,  Mass.,  and  will  be  ever  ready  and  most 
willing  to  respond  to  any  future  call  for  further  information,  either  in 
person  or  by  letter,  as  you  may  be  pleased  to  designate. 

Let  us,  then,  hope,  most  honored  sir,  that  although  our  business  is  but 
an  insignificant  part  of  the  vast  proportion  of  the  custom  aggregate, 
that  you  will  deal  with  the  same  as  justly  and  energetically  as  is  your 
custom  to  do. 

And  believe  us  to  be,  in  sincerity,  your  obedient  servants, 

American  Bronze  Powder  Manufacturing  Company. 

HENRY  AHLBORN, 

President. 

JOS.  BIEEHOFE, 

Secretary. 

LEWIS  M.  LIVINGSTON, 

Treasurer. 


[The  same.] 

New  York,  October  23,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Most  Honorable  Sir  : We  would  respectfully  submit  to  you  here- 
with our  answer  to  your  communications  of  October  2nd  and  19th  inst., 
and  will  try  to  be  as  explicit  and  distinct  as  lies  in  our  power  to  be,  but 
as  we  are  not  importing  any  bronze  powders  at  all  we  are  guided  solely 
by  the  quotations  made  for  the  different  grades  of  this  article,  by  the 
best  informed  importers  in  the  line,  whose  samples  are  frequently  sub- 
mitted and  prices  named  to  us  for  which  the  different  grades  can  be  pur- 
chased from  the  manufacturers  at  Fiirth,  Niirnberg,  and  other  parts  of 
Germany.  In  order  to  show  to  you  more  plainly  we  have  inclosed  five 
samples  from  the  lowest  to  the  more  finer  grades,  with  the  prices  as 


420  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

nearly,  if  not  exactly,  correct  as  made  in  the  German  market  for  export 
to  the  United  States. 

Quality  A,  foreign  cost  from  1 to  1.20  marks,  equal  to  24  to  28f  cents. 

Quality  0,  foreign  cost  1.75  marks,  equal  to  42  cents. 

Quality  F,  foreign  cost  2.60  marks,  equal  to  62  cents. 

Quality  T,  foreign  cost  4.60  marks,  equal  to  96  cents. 

Quality  Bx,  foreign  cost  7.50  marks,  equal  to  $1.80. 

These  qualities  represent  only  a few  grades  and  two  of  the  most  regu- 
lar shades  ; there  are  at  least  fifteen  grades  as  to  cost,  and  many  shades 
of  every  grade  of  which  inclosed  color  card  represents  the  most  im- 
portant ones. 

We  trust  that  our  samples  will  satisfy  you,  honorable,  sir.  As  to  our 
remarks  in  our  letter  August  31,  of  the  great  difficulty  of  appraising 
bronze  powders  and  guarding  against  possible  practiced  undervalua- 
tion with  an  ad  valorem  duty  as  now  existing,  the  cost  of  manufact- 
ure of  our  bronzes  in  most  of  the  lower  grades  equals  almost  the  price 
of  importation,  adding  duty,  &c.,  and  in  some  cases  exceed  it. 

To  our  best  information  the  aggregate  value  of  imported  bronzes  is 
from  $400,000  to  $450,000  per  annum. 

We  remain,  honorable  sir,  your  obedient  servants, 

HENRY  AHLBORN, 

President. . 

L.  M.  LIVINGSTON, 

Treasurer. 

JOSEPH  BIERHOFF, 

Secretary. 

Note  : Samples  will  be  transmitted  separately  to  Congress. 


[Ivison,  Blakeman,  Taylor  & Co.,  steel  pens.'] 

New  York,  October  15, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury,  Washington , D..  C. : 

Sir  : We  beg  to  reply  to  your  circular  regarding  the  tariff  laws  as 
affecting  steel  pens,  of  which  we  are  importers. 

We  believe  that  an  ad  valorem  rate  is  equitable  and  just  to  the  con- 
sumer, considering  that  there  is  so  great  a difference  in  cost  of  pens, 
ranging  from  4 d.  to  10s.  sterling  per  gross. 

We  advocate  the  specific  rate  to  avoid  undervaluations,  but  protest 
against  the  exorbitant  and  prohibitory  rates  for  low  cost  pens,  as  now 
imposed,  of  12  cents  per  gross. 

School  and  commercial  pens,  average  cost  5d.  per  gross,  pay  120  per- 
cent. duty,  while  fair  artistic  and  counting-house  pens,  average  cost  Is. 
per  gross,  pay  50  per  cent.  duty. 

We  know  that  5 cents  per  gross  is  sufficient  protection  to  American 
makers,  and  in  our  opinion  this  sum  should  be  levied. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

IVISON,  BLAKEMAN,  TAYLOR  & CO. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


421 


[Deere  & Co.,  steel  plows.] 

Moline,  III.,  July  29, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Mannings, 

Secretary  of  Treasury,  Washington , I).  C.: 

Dear  Sir:  Replying  to  your  circular  letter  of  July  17,  we  are  en- 
gaged in  the  manufacture  of  cast-steel  plows  with  tempered  wearing 
parts,  shares,  molds,  and  landsides,  necessitated  by  the  sticky  prairie 
soils  of  this  country.  There  are  no  plows  of  like  character  made  in  the 
Old  World,  therefore  the  rate  of  duty  or  manner  of  collecting  same  does 
not  affect  us  directly.  We  have  not  used  imported  iron  or  steel  since 
1858  to  any  extent,  except  during  the  boom  years  of  1879  and  1880, 
when  iron  and  steel  were  imported  in  large  quantities  and  sold  below 
that  of  American  manufacture.  It  is  suggested  that  an  ad  valorem 
duty  in  times  of  unusual  speculative  activity,  commonly  called  booms, 
would  tend  to  prevent  overstock  and  subsequent  demoralization  and 
stagnation.  Booms  are  usually  of  short  duration,  but  while  “ the  craze 
is  on  ” a feeling  is  apt  to  gain  credence  that  they  will  be  of  indefinite 
continuation ; hence  large  importations,  added  to  maximum  home  pro- 
duction, gorges  the  market.  A specific  duty,  producing  the  desired  re- 
sult when  trade  and  values  are  in  their  normal  condition,  is  no  protec- 
tion after  values  have  passed  a certain  point.  Here  the  question  arises, 
should  our  tariff  be  increased  with  the  increased  profits  of  the  exporter, 
and  would  the  increased  duty  check  speculation  and  prevent  a glut! 
If  so,  an  ad  valorem  duty  would  be  desirable. 

Common  labor  here  is  $1.35  per  day,  and  skilled  in  proportion.  Rate 
of  interest  now,  7 per  cent,  per  annum. 

Although  our  factory  is  situated  1,000  miles  inland,  we  have  a con- 
siderable trade  with  Australia,  New  Zealand,  and  South  Africa  in  our 
plows $ but  in  working  up  foreign  trade  we  are  confronted  with  a lack  of 
transportation  facilities  to  South  America  and  other  countries,  and  are 
of  opinion  that  if  some  of  the  surplus  revenue  were  used  to  aid  the  es- 
tablishment of  steamship  lines,  as  all  other  commercial  nations  have 
done,  it  would  return  many  fold  in  cheapened  imports  and  profits  on  in- 
creased exports. 

Our  manufactured  articles,  as  a rule,  are  so  much  superior  to  the  Eng- 
lish, and  our  labor  so  much  more  efficient,  as  to  overcome  entirely  the 
difference  in  nominal  daily  wages. 

We  trust  this  question  will  receive  some  consideration  from  this  ad- 
ministration, though  the  senseless  prejudice  against  this  class  of  sub- 
sidy well-nigh  precludes  the  possibility. 

Yours,  truly, 

DEERE  & CO. 


[R.  Hoe  & Co printing  presses.] 

New  York,  September  9,  1885. 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  circular  of  July  18,  we  desire  to  say  that,  in 
our  opinion,  the  duties  upon  machinery,  such  as  we  manufacture  and 
use,  including  printing  presses  of  all  kinds  and  machinists’  tools,  are 
for  the  present  very  nearly  right. 

We  should  prefer  a specific  duty  were  the  quality  of  all  the  machinery 
imported  the  same,  but  it  is  of  various  grades  of  material  and  work- 
manship, and  therefore  ad  valorem  duties  seem  unavoidable. 

We  are  aware  that  the  tariff  laws  are  evaded  by  undervaluation,  but 


422  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


the  remedy  for  this  lies  in  the  employment  of  competent  and  honest 
people  to  supervise  the  importations. 

We  believe  that  if  the  machinery  made  abroad  and  sent  to  this 
country  were  invoiced  at  its  honest  market  or  commercial  value  in  the 
countries  where  it  is  made,  and  the  present  rate  of  duties  on  the  same 
were  honestly  paid,  the  manufacturers  here  would  then  only  be  placed 
upon  no  more  than  an  equal  footing  with  the  manufacturers  abroad. 

Our  business  has  always  suffered  from  competition  with  foreign-made 
printing  machines.  We  cannot  sell  at  a profit  at.  the  prices  at  which 
the  German,  English,  and  French  machines  are  sold  here.  Our  manu- 
factures are  superior  in  quality,  and  it  is  for  this  reason  principally 
that  we  are  able  to  compete  with  the  foreigner  and  get  higher  prices, 
although  the  profits  are,  much  of  the  time,  unsatisfactory.  Were  we 
not  protected  in  a measure  by  our  patents  they  would  be  still  more  so. 

At  present  lower  rates  of  duty  would  have  a disastrous  effect  upon 
the  machinery  business  in  our  country,  not  to  sneak  of  the  injury  re- 
sulting by  a probable  lowering  of  the  standard  of  our  workmanship. 

As  we  have  a manufactory  in  London,  and  find  that  the  rates  of  wages 
there  average  (for  the  same  character  of  labor)  40  per  cent,  less  than  in 
our  works  in  New  York,  you  will  see  that  if  a reduction  of  the  tariff  on 
articles  of  our  manufacture  should  be  made,  the  result  would  undoubt- 
edly be  that  we  should  find  it  our  interest  to  increase  our  works  on  the 
other  side  and  diminish  those  at  home. 

Very  respectfully,  your- obedient  servants, 

R.  HOE  & CO. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. 


[The  Auburn  Tool  Company,  carpenters’  tools."] 

Auburn,  N.  Y.,  October  3, 1885. 

Hon.  D.  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Agreeably  to  your  invitation  desiring  the  views  of  the 
manufacturers  in  relation  to  a protective  tariff,  we  would  state  that  we 
would  prefer  free  trade  in  our  business  of  manufacturing  carpenters  and 
joiners’  tools.  We  sell  our  goods  in  the  British  provinces,  and  have  to 
meet  a tariff  of  30  per  cent,  and  sell  low  enough  to  meet  it.  Without 
a tariff  our  sales  would  be  greatly  increased  in  all  foreign  countries. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

GEO.  CASEY, 

President. 


[The  Miller  Bros.  Cutlery  Co.,  cutlery:] 

Meriden,  Conn.,  October  27, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular  of  inquiry  ofthe  22d  instant  received.  I in- 
close a circular  or  relative  statement  for  the  “ Tariff  Commission,”  show- 
ing the  cost  of  pocket  cjitlery  in  Germany,  England,  and  this  country. 
The  relative  costs  have  not  changed  materially  since  that  time.  You  will 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


428 


see  at  a glance  that  a specific  duty  alone  that  would  protect  us  from 
one  country  would  bar  the  other  out  altogether.  After  long  figuring, 
I was  able  to  demonstrate  that  50  cents  per  dozen  blades  specific  and 
30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  would  be  equivalent  to  50  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  duty  on  the  average  price  of  English  cutlery  imported.  It 
would  be  an  advance  on  the  lower  grade  of  German  goods ; but  as  their 
sale,  considering  their  worthlessness,  is  an  imposition,  I considered  that 
it  would  be  no  hardship  upon  the  people.  I am  not  an  advocate  of 
combined  duties,  and  I believe  in  specific  duties  wherever  they  can  be 
used.  I think  that  I should  be  prepared  to  accept  30  cents  per  dozen 
blades  and  say  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty.  That  would  be  a reduction 
on  English  goods,  on  the  average,  from  the  present  50  per  cent.  The 
question  of  undervaluation  we  have  made  very  plain  in  previous  com- 
munications. Results  this  fall  may  enab|e  us  to  offer  further  opinions 
later. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

W.  F.  ROCKWELL. 

Treasurer. 


To  the  honorable  members  of  the  Tariff  Commission  : 

Gentlemen:  At  a meeting  of  the  American  Pocket  Cutlery  Association,  held  in 
New  York  August  2,  1882,  it  was  unanimously  agreed  to  respectfully  submit  for  your 
consideration  such  changes  in  the  tariff  as  our  experience  suggests  as  more  equitable 
than  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  of  50  per  cent.  The  average  cost  of  material  used 
by  us  is  20  per  cent,  of  our  production,  and  the  balance,  80  per  cent.,  is  made  up  of 
labor.  Our  foreign  competition  comes  from  both  England  and  Germany.  The  work 
in  both  foreign  countries  is  done  largely  on  the  family  plan,  the  cutlery  being  simply 
inspected  and  packed  in  the  warehouse,  the  workmen  usually  furnishing  such  power, 
tools,  and  supplies  as  are  needed.  The  variety  manufactured  both  here  and  abroad 
is  very  large,  but  we  append  sufficient  examples  of  the  cost  of  the  leading  grades  to 
illustrate  the  request  that  you  will  investigate  the  propriety  of  recommending  a 
specific  duty  of  50  cents  per  dozen  blades,  instruments,  or  erasers,  and  30  per  cent, 
ad  valorem  duty. 

As  many  foreign  manufacturers  have  a resident  partner  in  this  country,  it  is  obvi- 
ous and  admitted  that  many  goods  are  invoiced  and  duty  paid  at  the  cost  of  labor 
and  material,  while  the  profit  is  added  in  this  country.  The  amount  of  goods  im- 
ported during  the  last  year  was  about  $2,000,000,  an  increase  of  50  per  cent,  in  the 
last  three  years.  The  amount  manufactured  here  was  about  $1,350,000,  an  increase 
of  not  over  25  per  cent,  during  the  same  time. 

While  the  quality  of  genuine  American  goods  is  almost  universally  conceded  to  be 
far  superior  to  the  average  German  and  lower  grades  of  English  wares,  and  perhaps 
equal  to  the  best  imported,  still  the  American  good  name  has  been  greatly  com- 
promised by  foreign  manufacturers  of  low-grade  cutlery  adopting  American  patterns 
and  American  names,  thus  bringing  an  unfair  competition  on  our  cutlery  that  has 
made  the  trade  devoid  of  profit.  While  we  have  many  specially  skilled  workmen  who 
can  earn  much  more,  the  average  wages  paid  by  us  is  $2  per  day,  and  we  find  it 
difficult  to  retain  good  men  at  that  rate,  as  other  branches  of  industry  offer  better  re- 
muneration. The  average  wages  paid  in  England  is  less  than  one  half  and  in  Ger- 
many less  than  one-fourth  of  the  amount  paid  by  us  for  the  same  class  of  labor.  Iu 
the  table  annexed  we  have  given  the  cost  of  material,  labor,  and  incidental  or  factory 
expenses  on  American  goods.  We  have  deducted  35  per  cent,  (average  duty)  from 
the  material  on  foreign  imports.  We  have  estimated  English  skill  at  one-half  and 
German  labor  at  one-fourth  the  rate  of  our  own. 

Having  stated  in  brief  our  ideas,  we  will  at  any  time  furnish  any  special  or  collat- 
eral information  which  you  may  desire. 

WILLIAM  F.  ROCKWELL, 

Treasurer  the  Miller  Bros . Cutlery  Company , Meriden , Conn.,  President. 

F.  H.  CATLIN, 

President  Northfield  Knife  Company,  North  field,  Conn.,  Secretary. 

THOMAS  W.  BRADLEY, 

President  New  York  Knife  Company,  Walden,  N.  Y.,  Chairman  Executive  Committee. 


Relative  cost  prices  of  American , English,  and  German  pocket  cutlery , with  50  cents  per  dozen  blades  specific  and  SO  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  added  to  the 

foreign  goods. 


424 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


American. 

•1600  JBJOX 

$3  32 
2 92 
2 00 
2 84 

1 84 

2 63 

1 55 

2 27 

1 47 

2 18 

3 24 

4 40 

5 13 

3 72 

4 95 

5 72 
3 97 

5 28 

6 05 

11  50 

12  00 

14  50 

15  00 

■saeuod 

-xo  {Bfjnepiouj 

$0  66 
58 
40 
57 
37 
53 
31 
45 
29 
43 

65 

88 

1 02 
74 
99 

1 14 
79 

1 05 

1 21 

2 30 

2 40 

2 90 

3 00 

•joqux  jo  jsoo 

$2  13 
1 87 
1 28 
1 82 
1 18 
1 68 
99 
1 46 
95 

1 40 

2 07 
2 82 

3 29 

2 39 

3 17 
3 66 

2 55 

3 38 

3 87 
6 14 

6 40 

7 74 

8 00 

•[BtJOJBOI  JO  JSOQ 

o_  cameo-# 

English. 

•}BOO  113JOX 

$2  39 
2 16 

1 64 

2 61 

1 54 

2 49 

1 40 

2 30 

1 33 

2 24 

2 84 
4 01 
4 93 

3 13 

4 32 

5 26 

3 26 

4 52 

5 45 

8 43 

9 24 
10  22 
11  04 

Duty. 

•cuajopBApe 
•juao  aad  08 

$0  43 
38 
26 
37 
24 
34 
21 
30 
19 
28 

42 

58 

67 

49 

65 

75 

52 

70 

79 
1 60 

1 67 

2 00 
2 08 

•sepBpq  uazop 
aad  sjuao  os 

§§§§§§§§  §ggg§ 

O rHrH,Hi-Hr-»rH<Nr-<rHC^T-lrH  NnWHN 

\ioqnj  jo  jsoo 

$1  07 
93 
64 
91 
59 
84 
50 
73 
47 
70 

1 04 

1 41 

1 65 

1 20 

1 59 

1 83 

1 28 

1 69 

1 94 
3 07 
3 20 

3 87 

4 00 

•IBuojera  jo  jsoq 

$0  39 
35 
24 
33 
21 
31 
19 
27 
17 
26 

38 

52 

61 

44 

58 

68 

46 

63 

72 

2 26 
2 37 
2 85 
2 96 

German. 

•jsoo  jejox 

$1  69 

1 57 
1 22 

2 01 
1 16 
1 95 
1 07 
1 83 
1 03 

1 79 

2 17 

3 09 
3 86 

2 34 

3 38 

4 08 

2 43 

3 42 

4 19 

6 44 

7 16 

7 72 

8 44 

Duty. 

•majopBA  pe 
•juaa  aad  08 

$0  27 
25 
16 
23 
15 
22 
13 
19 
12 
18 

27 

37 

43 
30 
51 
48 
33 

44 

50 
1 14 
1 19 
1 43 
1 48 

•sapiqq  uazop 
aad  sjuao  os 

gggggsgggg  gggggggg  ggggg 

0_  <N  <M  i~(  <M 

•joqBj  jo  jeoQ 

$0  53 
47 
32 
45 
30 
42 
25 
37 
24 
35 

52 

70 

82 

60 

79 

92 

64 

85 

97 
1 54 
1 CO 

1 94 

2 00 

qmaojtjui  jo  jsoq 

$0  39 
35 
24 
33 
21 
31 
19 
27 
17 
26 

38 

52 

61 

44 

58 

68 

46 

63 

72 

2 26 
2 37 
2 85 
2 96 

Description. 

4jj-inch  cap,  pruner,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering  . . . 

4-inch  cap,  pruner,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

4-inch  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

4-inch  jack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering  . . . 

33- inch , ack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

34- inclx  jack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering  . . . 

34-inch  jack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

34  inch , ack-knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

3Mnch  , ack-knife,  one  blade,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

3£-iuch  jack  knife,  two  blades,  iron  lined,  wood  covering 

2£-inch  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag 

covering 

2^  inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag 

covering  

2^-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag 

covering 

3-inch  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stage  ov- 
erin g 

3-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag 

covering 

3-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag  cov- 
ering   

3£-incb  penknife,  two  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag 

covering 

3^-iuch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag 

covering 

3£-incli  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  ivory  or  stag 

covering 

3J-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering  . . 
3§-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering  .. 
3|-inch  penknife,  three  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering  .. 
33-inch  penknife,  four  blades,  brass  lined,  pearl  covering  . . 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


425 


[The  John  Russell  Cutlery  Co.  and  others,  cutlery.'] 

New  York,  October  1,  1885. 

Hod.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  Your  circular  letter  of  the  27th  of  July,  relating  to  the  tariff 
and  its  methods  of  collection,  has  had  our  careful  consideration. 

It  will  afford  us  pleasure  at  any  and  all  times  to  furnish  you  any  aid 
or  information  in  our  power  that  will  be  useful  in  enabling  you  to  en- 
force the  collection  in  full  of  the  duties  to  which  the  Government  is 
entitled  under  the  tariff  laws,  and  to  reduce  to  the  lowest  possible  point 
the  opportunities  for  evasion  of  the  tariff. 

As  it  appears4o  us,  specific  duties  are  the  quickest  and  surest  method 
of  closing  the  doors  against  fraud,  where  such  duties  can  be  levied. 
Starting  with  this  belief,  we  have  made  an  effort  to  so  arrange  and 
classify  our  lines  of  manufactures  as  to  bring  them  within  a scope  that 
would  admit  of  the  application  of  specific  duties. 

We  have  priced  upon  our  list  upwards  of  four  thousand  different 
items  of  different  values.  These  vary  so  much,  that  a line  of  specific 
duties  to  cover  all  styles,  makes,  and  values  would  be  so  cumbersome 
as  to  be  impracticable,  and  leave  larger  opportunity,  possibly,  for  the 
evasion  of  the  tariff  laws  than  when  an  ad  valorem  duty  is  collected. 
A system  of  specific  duties  cannot  be  levied  on  table  and  pocket  cut- 
lery that  would  be  equitable  to  either  the  Government,  the  American 
manufacturer,  or  the  importer. 

Furthermore,  assuming  that  the  most  desirable  method  of  levying  a 
duty  on  imports  is  that  which  shall  entirely  remove  the  fixing  the 
amount  of  such  duty  from  being  subject  to  the  individual  opinion  or 
construction  of  any  officer  or  officers  of  the  customs,  no  matter  how 
honest  such  opinion  or  construction  may  be,  we  are  of  the  opinion 
that  specific  duties  cannot  be  so  arranged  for  cutlery  as  to  obviate  this 
to  any  greater  extent  than  by  the  present  system  of  ad  valorem  duties. 

Taking  into  consideration  all  other  known  methods  as  well,  we  are 
forced  to  the  conclusion  that  ad  valorem  duties  for  cutlery  are  the  most 
practicable  and  the  best. 

The  large  number  of  u units  of  quantity”  embraced  in  our  line  of 
manufactures,  and  the  great  amount  of  detail  in  their  costs,  make  it 
unwise,  it  appears  to  us,  to  attempt  to  respond  in  detail  to  your  inquiries 
Nos.  2,  3,  4,  and  5,  or  to  send  samples,  as  a glance  at  our  catalogues 
(copies  of  which  we  hand  you  by  mail)  will  undoubtedly  convince  you. 

We  may,  however,  serve  you  somewhat  by  saying  that  the  large  item 
of  cost  in  production  is  labor,  in  many  instances  as  high  as  90  per  cent, 
of  the  entire  cost,  the  average,  however,  being  from  70  to  75  per  cent, 
for  table  cutlery,  pocket  cutlery  averaging  even  higher. 

The  wage  earnings  in  our  shops  are  very  much  higher  than  in  Euro- 
pean manufactories,  as  you  will  note  by  the  following  list  of  some  classes 
of  wages  now  being  paid  in  Sheffield  and  by  us. 

The  Sheffield  prices  are  from  a table  of  net  earnings  of  workmen,  re- 
cently carefully  and  intelligently  prepared  for  us  in  Sheffield : 


Average  earnings  per  day. 


Sheffield. 

United  States. 

Hammer  men 

$1  25  to  $1  50 
1 25 

$2  00  to  $2  50 
2 50  to  3 00 

'Grinders  (fine) 

Grinders  (common) 

75 

1 50  to  1 75 

Hafters 

1 10  to  1 30 

l 50  to  2 25 

Polishers 

1 00 

1 50  to  2 00 

42  G REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


To  illustrate  in  a measure  the  difference  in  costs  between  Sheffield 
and  the  United  States,  we  will  take  a leading  knife,  which  costs  us,  fin- 
ished, ready  for  market,  $2  per  dozen.  The  cost  of  the  material  is  50 
cents  per  dozen,  the  cost  of  labor  is  $1.50  per  dozen.  In  Sheffield  the 
cost  of  material  in  this  knife  would  be  but  little,  if  any,  less  than  here, 
and  the  cost  of  labor  would  be  under  90  cents  per  dozen,  making  the 
total  cost  there  not  far  from  $1.40  per  dozen.  These  figures  are  based 
on  present  labor  earnings  in  Shefield.  This  is  as  fair  an  illustration  as 
can  be  made. 


The  cutlery  manufacturers  of  this  country  have  suffered  and  are  suffer- 
ing severely  from  the  competition  brought  about  by  the  importation  of 
cutlery  that  has  not  paid  the  duty  required  by  law. 

Several  cutlery  manufacturers  have  within  the  past  few  years  been 
forced  into  insolvency  or  compromise  with  their  creditors,  several  have 
either  partially  or  altogether  stopped  their  wheels,  and  none  have  been 
able  to  earn  interest  on  the  capital  invested. 

The  oldest  and  strongest  companies  are  not  holding  their  own.  For- 
~ merly  table  cutlery  paid  the  same  duty  as  pocket  cutlery,  but  by  clerical 
error  it  was  placed  in  the  35  per  cent,  class. 

Pocket  cutlery,  owing  to  the  larger  proportion  of  labor  in  the  cost  of 
production,  and  the  industry  not  being  as  firmly  established  in  this 
country  as  table  cutlery,  still  needs  its  50  per  cent,  tariff  for  protection, 
but  we  believe  that  with  a 35  per  cent,  duty  on  table  cutlery,  collected 
onUie  market  value  of  the  goods  in  the  market  from  which  imported, 
we  can  maintain  our  trade  against  European  competition,  and  also  fair 
wages  to  our  employes. 

Most  of  the  materials  which  we  use  are  free.  American  cutlery  steel 
is  nearly  or  quite  as  low  as  the  same  grades  of  steel  in  Sheffield  or  Ger- 
many, and  material  being  a small  item  of  cost  with  us,  the  cost  of  the 
article  will  not  be  affected  by  any  probable  legislation. 

When,  therefore,  we  are  unable  to  get  a price  for  our  goods  which  will 
cover  the  cost  (as  is  the  case  to  day),  we  have  but  three  courses  before 
us — reduce  the  wages  of  employes,  close  up  the  factories,  or  bank- 
ruptcy. 

No  manufacturer  who  is  thoroughly  American  wishes  to  reduce  the 
wages  of  his  employes.  Our  wages  are  at  the  lowest  point  to-day. 

Thus,  briefly,  have  we  presented  to  you  the  condition  of  the  cutlery 
business  in  this  country.  If  we  have  not  been  sufficiently  explicit,  or 
can  be  of  further  service  to  you,  kindly  command  us. 

Bespectfully, 

John  Bussell  Cutlery  Co., 

By  B.  M.  OAKMAN,  Jr.,  Treas. 

" Landers,  Tracey  & Clark. 

By  Ch.  LANDEBS,  Treas. 

Meriden  Cutlery  Co., 

By  A.  L.  COLLINS,  Pres. 

Beaver  Falls  Cutlery  Co., 

By  H.  W.  BEEVES,  Supt. 

The  Bridgeport  Knife  Co., 

By  ANTON  TBUNK,  Pres. 

Northampton  Cutlery  Co., 

By  E.  E.  WOOD,  Treas. 


Goodell  Co., 

By  A.  ALFOBD,  Agt. 

American  Cutlery  Co., 
By  J.  HIBSH,  See>y. 

Per  L. 

New  York  Knife  Co., 
Per  THM.  BBADLEY,  Pres. 

The  Upson  & Hart  Co., 
By  H.  C.  HABT,  Sechj. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


427 


[James  L.  Cowles,  cutlery,  j 

Farmington ,.  Conn .,  November  25,  1885. 

To  Hon.  Daniel  Manning-, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ; 

Dear  Sir  : I have  not  been  honored  with  a copy  of  your  circular  re- 
specting the  tariff,  but  I am  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  table  cut- 
lery to  the  extent  of  some  $8,000,  and  as  my  opinions  are  directly  op- 
posite to  those  expressed  in  the  resolutions  of  the  cutlery  manufacturers 
at  their  meeting  in  New  York  on  the  1st  of  October  last,  I venture  to 
send  you  this  letter,  although  it  is  very  late.  These  resolutions,  which 
have  just  come  to  my  hand,  demand  that  a tariff  tax  of  35  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  be  laid  on  foreign  cutlery,  because  day  wages  in  this  country 
are  30  to  40  per  cent,  higher  than  in  Sheffield,  England. 

But  day  wages  do  not  offer  a just  basis  on  which  to  determine  the 
labor  cost  in  any  article  of  cutlery.  This  work  is  nearly  all  done  by  the 
piece,  and  it  is  altogether  probable  that  although  day  wages  are  higher  in 
this  country  than  elsewhere,  yet  the  labor  cost  of  a table  knife  or  fork 
is  actually  less  here  than  in  Sheffield  or  anywhere  else.  The  American 
operative  turns  out  a greater  product  in  a day  than  any  foreign  com- 
petitor. 

It  is,  I think,  universally  admitted  that  the  Englishman  who  comes 
to  America  turns  out  more  work  after  he  has  been  a few  months  in  our 
shops  than  he  ever  did  at  his  old  home.  But  if  any  manufacturers  of 
cutlery  in  the  world  can  supply  the  wants  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  at  a less  cost  to  the  consumer  than  we  of  Connecticut,  then  it  is 
our  business  to  give  up  the  manufacture  of  cutlery  and  do  something 
else.  We  can’t  find  our  mistake  too  soon. 

If,  however,  we  can  have  free  coal,  free  steel,  free  lumber,  &c.,  if  the 
United  States  Government  will  allow  us  the  free  use  of  our  harbors  and 
free  ships  to  sail  from  those  harbors,  then  I have  no  fear  of  Connecti- 
cut’s ability  to  compete  with  Sheffield,  not  only  in  our  own  Inarket,  but 
wherever  the  American  flag  can  carry  our  products.  To-day  our  raw 
materials  may  be  as  low  as  in  England,  but  on  the  first  dawn  of  pros- 
perity the  coni  and  iron  lords  will  combine  to  mulct  us.  The  trouble 
with  the  cutlery  business  of  New  England  and  with  every  other  legiti- 
mate industry  is  lack  of  markets  for  our  goods,  and  it  is  the  tariff  that  is 
depriving  us  of  our  markets  both  at  home  and  abroad. 

It  was  mere  retaliation  on  the  part  of  the  French  that  led  to  the 
French  decree  excluding  American  pork  from  France,  and  a similar 
spirit  has  actuated  the  governments  of  Germany,  Austria,  and  Russia 
in  their  recent  tariff  legislation.  I was  in  Europe  from  August,  1880,  to 
August,  1883,  and  I had  many  opportunities  to  learn  of  the  effect  of  our 
tariff  legislation  on  the  minds  of  the  people. 

The  French  exclusion  of  pork  has  deprived  the  Western  farmer  of  a 
valuable  market  for  the  pork  which  we  could  not  consume,  and  it  has 
thus  deprived  him  of  the  power  to  buy  New  England  cutlery, 

The  only  product  of  Connecticut’s  soil  is  skilled  men.  She  imports 
each  year  from  without  her  borders  $100,000,000  raw  material — iron,  coal, 
copper,  lead,  lumber,  &c. — for  their  use.  The  tariff  adds  to  the  cost  of 
these  materials  not  less  than  $10,000,000  annually.  At  the  same  time  it 
shuts  us  out  of  the  markets  of  South  America,  Australia,  and  Africa  by 
its  threats  to  confiscate  40  per  cent,  of  the  products  of  those  countries, 
which,  except  for  the  tariff,  would  be  exchanged  for  our  finished  goods.  * 

I have  been  a stockholder  in  many  manufacturing  enterprises  in  the 
village  of  Unionville,  Conn.,  where  the  Upson  and  Hart  Cutlery  Com- 


428  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


pany  are  located.  I built  tlie  factory  which  they  occupy.  My  father 
founded  the  village.  An  experience  of  twenty  years  has  proven  to  rue 
that  our  high  tariff  has  not  been  a blessing  but  a curse  to  us.  In  that 
interval  the  largest  concern  in  the  village,  a concern  wonderfully  suc- 
cessful from  its  foundation  in  1848  to  1860,  has  lost  all  its  property  and 
has  been  reorganized. 

Another  in  which  I was  a considerable  stockholder  was  organized  in 
1866.  It  was  a direct  product  of  the  era  of  inflated  currency  and  high 
tariff.  It  hasn’t  yielded  3 per  cent,  to  its  owners.  The  Standard  Rule 
and  Level  Company  owes  its  birth  to  the  same  mother.  The  high  tariff 
enabled  the  rule-makers  to  combine  and  monopolize  the  American  mar- 
ket. For  a brief  season  they  reaped  high  profits.  Shrewd  business 
men  in  the  village,  Mr.  Andrew  A.  Upson  among  them,  were  deceived, 
and  we  formed  a joint-stock  company  with  a capital  of  $30,000.  Before 
the  first  year  was  ended  the  combination  broke,  and  we  had  lost  $10,000. 
We  reduced  the  capital  and  increased  it  again  with  a like  result.  And 
within  a year  the  capital  has  yet  again  been  reduced ; this  time  one- 
half,  and  again  increased. 

How,  sir,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  had  enough  of  congressional 
protection.  There  are  many  of  us,  and  every  day  the  number  is  grow- 
ing, who  feel  that  there  can  be  no  stable  prosperity  until  the  principle 
of  protection  or  spoliation  is  entirely  eliminated  from  the  tariff. 

It  is  a significant  fact  that  in  1857,  after  ten  years  of  experience  of 
the  low  tariff  of  1846,  when  it  was  proposed  to  enact  a tariff  law  mak- 
ing duties  still  lower,  almost  every  Hew  Englander  at  Washington  voted 
in  favor  of  the  bill.  There  were  no  opponents,  1 think,  save  from  Ver- 
mont. Again,  when  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Vermont  introduced 
the  famous  protective  tariff  bill  of  1860,  he  acknowledged  that  it  was 
not  the  manufacturer’s  bill.  The  manufacturer’s  bill  was  that  of  1857. 
The  bill  of  1860  was  introduced  not  to  benefit  Hew  England,  but  to  hire 
Pennsylvania  to  go  with  the  republican  party. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

JAMES  L.  COWLES, 
Farmington , Conn. 


[Biddle  Hardware  Company,  cutlery.  ] 

Philadelphia,  October  20, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary , Treasury  Department , 

Washington , D.  C. : 

In  reply  to  your  circular  of  July  24,  would  say  that,  as  importers  of 
hardware,  we  have  no  cause  to  complain  of  ad  valorem  duties.  Such 
goods  as  we  import  largely  could  not  have  their  value  fixed  in  any  other 
way.  We  refer  to  pocket  cutlery,  razors,  &c.  Anvils,  chains,  &c.,  pay 
specific  duties  now. 

We  believe  that  cheap  grades  of  pocket  cutlery,  particularly  German, 
have  been  very  much  undervalued.  The  only  remedy  for  this  is  to  have 
your  appraisers  thorough  cutlery  men,  who  can  detect  this  when  pass- 
ing the  goods  through  the  appraisers’  Stores. 

We  suffer  more  from  this  continual  agitation  of  the  tariff  question, 
and  would  suggest  that  the  present  tariff  be  honesty  and  economically 
collected  and  allowed  to  remain  as  it  is  for  at  least  ten  years.  Our  ex- 
perience leads  us  to  believe  that  a high  tariff  produces  low  prices,  by  build- 
ing up  large  manufacturing  concerns,  who,  in  competing  for  trade,  re- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


429 


duce  prices ; that  the  articles  that  have  the  heaviest  protection  are  the 
lowest  in  price,  for  instance,  screws  and  files.  On  both  of  these  arti- 
cles the  tariff  is  almost  prohibitory,  yet  they  are  now  sold  so  low  in  this 
country  that  it  would  not  pay  to  import  if  the  tariff  was  entirely  re- 
moved. 

Your  friend, 

BIDDLE  HAEDWARE  COMPANY. 


[Joseph  C.  Grubh  & Co fire-arms.'] 

Philadelphia,  September  25,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circular  letter  of  July  24  last,  relative  to  the  adop- 
tion of  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem  duties,  has  received  our  careful 
consideration.  The  great  variety  in  fire-arms,  their  material,  appurte- 
nances, and  articles  sold  in  connection  with  them,  renders  the  appli- 
cation of  specific  duties  to  them  a matter  of  extreme  difficulty,  and  it 
would  only  be  successfully  done  after  many  years  of  experiment  in  that 
direction.  If,  in  applying  the  system  of  duties,  these  goods  are  classi- 
fied as  to  quality,  finish,  prices,  &c.,  so  as  to  place  a higher  rate  of  duty 
on  the  more  costly  grades,  the  door  is  temptingly  opened  to  the  dishon- 
est importer  to  have  such  articles  undervalued  in  order  to  avoid  the 
higher  rate  of  duty,  and  no  more  protection  is  secured  to  the  honest  im- 
porter than  is  afforded  under  the  present  ad  valorem  system. 

It  is  our  opinion  that,  except  in  the  line  of  sporting  fire-arms,  there  is 
little  or  no  cause  for  complaint  by  reason  of  undervaluation,  and  even 
in  these  arms  it  is  infrequent,  owing  no  doubt  in  a great  measure  to  the 
care  and  knowledge  of  the  appraiser  of  customs.  We  have  heard  or 
known  of  few  instances,  and  two  of  them  of  recent  occurrence,  at  this  port. 

Specific  duties  might  safely  be  levied  on  the  following  articles,  of 
which  only  the  lower  grades  in  quality  and  price  are  imported  into  this 
country,  the  higher  or  finer  grades  being  almost  totally  unmarketable: 

Duty  on  each  piece. 


Single-barrel  shot-guns,  muzzle-loading $0  60 

Single-barrel  muskets,  smooth-bore 75 

Single-barrel  shot-guns,  breech-loading 1 00 

Single-barrel  rifles,  muzzle- loading,  all  styles 2 00 

Single-barrel  sporting  rifles,  breech-loading,  made  to  shoot  bulleted  percus- 

cussion  caps,  and  commonly  known  as  Flobert  or  saloon  rifles  1 50 

Single-barrel  sporting  rifles,  breech-loading,  not  rifled 1 00 

Single-barrel  sporting  rifles,  breech-loading 2 50 

Single-barrel  military  rifles,  breech-loading 3 50 

Double-barrel  shot-guns,  muzzle-loading 1 50 

Double-barrel  shot-guns,  muzzle-loading,  weighing  over  11  pounds 3 00 

Double-barrel  rifle  and  shot-guns,  muzzle-loading 2 50 

Per  cent. 

On  all  other  styles  and  qualities  of  Are- arms,  including  breech-loading  shot- 
guns, ad  valorem  duty 35 

Pistols  of  every  quality  and  description,  ad  valorem  duty 45 

Gun  materials,  ammunition  of  all  kinds,  sporting  articles,  and  percussion 
caps,  ad  valorem  duty *. 45 


The  above  ad  valorem  rates  are  the  same  as  fixed  under  the  existing 

tariff. 

We  remain,  yours,  very  truly, 

JOS.  C.  GRUBB  & CO. 


430 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[Le  Gierse  & Co.,  undervaluation.'] 

Galveston,  Tex.,  August  0,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.: 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  circular  of  July 
28,  wherein  you  state  that  investigations  have  shown  that  tariff  laws 
where  duties  are  levied  ad  valorem  are  largely  evaded,  and  asking  the 
advice  of  merchants,  whose  just  interests,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, are  dependent  upon  an  honest  administration  of  tariff*  laws. 

My  own  experience  affords  but  a limited  scope  for  observation,  inas- 
much as  most  of  the  articles  of  my  own  importation  are  not  subject  to 
ad  valorem  duties  ; but  in  that  very  fact  appears  room  for  an  inquiry 
why  our  port,  w7ith  its  facilities  for  importing,  is  almost  wholly  confined 
to  the  importation  of  goods  paying  either  a specific  duty  or  appear  on 
the  free  list.  Galveston  importers  have  never  found  it  to  their  inter- 
ests to  engage  in  the  importation  of  goods  subject  to  ad  valorem  duties, 
for  the  reason  that  other  ports  have  always  been  able  to  import  that  to 
class  of  merchandise  and  material  in  such  a way  as  to  supply  markets 
naturally  tributary  to  our  port  at  figures  that  would  represent  a loss 
to  our  importers,  but  must  contain  a profit  for  those  more  favored  or 
less  scrupulous.  Though  Galveston  importers  have  all  the  facilities 
of  ample  capital  and  means  of  reaching  distributory  chaunels,  they  are 
virtually  debarred  from  handling  certain  lines  of  foreign  articles,  and 
therefore  my  personal  experience  does  not  warrant  me  in  suggesting  de- 
tails of  desired  changes.  As  the  investigations  already  made  by  your 
Department  have  shown  that  evasions  are  practiced,  it  may  be  super- 
fluous for  me  to  direct  myself  to  calling  your  attention  to  circumstances 
in  support  of  the  conclusions  you  have  reached;  but  I have  it  in  confi- 
dence from  friends  who  are  engaged  in  the  importation  of  silks  in  New 
York  that  it  is  to  their  interest  to  have  certain  other  importers  under- 
take the  transportation  and  receipt  of  their  consignments.  The  house 
referred  to  sends  its  buyer  abroad  twice  each  year,  has  every  facility 
for  making  its  own  importations,  yet  finds  it  advantageous  to  have  its 
own  purchases  transferred  abroad  to  others,  who  are  perhaps  less  sensi- 
tive as  to  the  nature  of  an  oath.  I do  not  know  that  this  state  of  affairs 
still  exists  under  the  new  administration. 

While  on  this  subject  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  for  me  to  say  that 
your  efforts  in  the  direction  of  an  honest  administration  of  the  laws 
as  they  exist,  and  your  purpose  to  make  these  still  more  effective,  are 
greatly  appreciated  by  the  business  men  with  whom  I come  into  con- 
tact, and  I have  no  doubt  that  you  will  also  institute  a much-needed 
reform  in  the  manner  of  inspecting  personal  effects  of  travelers  coming 
into  our  country.  On  several  occasions  I have  felt  humiliated  by  the 
unblushing  effrontery  of  New  York  customs  officials  in  their  treatment 
of  travelers.  Openly  holding  themselves  out  to  be  bribed,  they  seemed 
to  take  especial  delight  to  annoy  and  incommode  those  who  were  hon- 
est enough  to  prefer  paying  to  the  Government  wJiat  was  due  rather 
than  to  fee  the  officer,  while  those  who  had  nothing.liable  to  duty  were 
subjected  to  every  harassment. 

Wishing  you  success  in  your  commendable  efforts  in  the  direction  of 
justice  and  right, 

I have  the  honor  to  remain,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

M.  LASKER. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


431 


[Thos.  G.  Shearman,  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties.  ] 

Dresden,  September  18,  1885. 

Hoik  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , I).  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Although  I do  not  belong  to  the  class  to  whom  you  ad* , 
dressed  your  recent  circular  asking  for  information  with  regard  to  the 
expediency  of  changing  ad  valorem  duties  into  specific  rates,  yet  I trust 
that  suggestions  from  those  who  belong  only  to  the  class  of  consumers, 
and  who  therefore  finally  pay  all  such  taxes,  with  no  power  to  shift  the 
burden  upon  others,  much  less  to  profit  by  the  maintenance  of  taxa- 
tion, will  not  be  received  by  the  present  administration  with  such  abso- 
lute indifference,  not  to  say  contempt,  as  has  been  the  case  for  many 
year^  past.  For  twenty  years  it  has  apparently  been  the  doctrine  of 
the  Government  that  the  real  tax  payers  had  nothing  to  do  with  tax 
laws  except  to  jiay  the  taxes.  That  maxim,  I am  sure,  will  not  be  ad- 
hered to  by  you. 

For  years  past  I have  carefully  read  all  that  has  been  published  in 
discussion  of  the  relative  merits  of  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties. 
These  discussions  have  taken  a wide  range,  and  the  effects  of  the  one 
and  the  other  upon  the  interests  of  the  Government,  the  importer,  and 
the  manufacturer  have  been  fully  dealt  with;  but  for  fifteen  years  I have 
never  seen  the  interest  of  the  real  tax-payer,  that  is,  the  consumer,  taken 
into  account. 

Now,  it  may  be,  as  is  often  asserted,  that  specific  duties  are  more  easily 
collected,  that  they  put  honest  importers  upon  at  least  an  equality  with 
dishonest  ones,  and  that  they  afford  a steadier  bounty  out  of  our  pockets 
in  favor  of  the  manufacturers  of  similar  articles  than  can  be  claimed  for 
ad  valorem  duties.  All  this  may  be  true;  and  nevertheless  it  remains 
the  fact  that  these  advantages  inure  to  the  benefit  of  less  than  twenty 
thousand  persons  out  of  more  than  eighteen  millions  engaged  in  gain- 
ful occupations.  The  Government  officials  may  have  their  tasks 
lightened,  but  the  Government  itself  is  sure  to  collect  whatever  income 
it  needs  in  one  way  if  not  in  another.  Competition  among  importers 
may  be  put  upon  a fairer  footing,  but  consumers  will  lose  the  benefit  of 
cheap  prices ; and  the  interest  of  manufacturers  in  the  matter  is  ob- 
viously opposed  to  that  of  all  their  fellow-citizens. 

Now,  look  at  this  question  from  the  side  of  the  consumer — that  is,  of 
the  eighteen  million  real  taxpayers.  Specific  duties  are  highly  oppress- 
ive, unfair,  unequal,  and  unjust  to  them;  and  no  method  has  yet  been 
devised  by  which  they  can  be  made  .otherwise.  That  duties  ought  al- 
ways to  be  estimated  upon  an  ad  valorem  basis,  in.  order  to  work  jus- 
tice among  consumers,  is  too  evident  to  need  argument.  It  is  conceded 
by  the  universal  attempt  to  ascertain  specific  duties  by  an  ad  valorem 
calculation.  It  is  obviously  unjust  that  one  coat  worth  only  $10  should 
pay  the  same  tax  as  another  coat  worth  $50.  This  is  recoguized  by  the 
many  shadings  of  specific  duties  by  which  it  is  falsely  pretended  such 
rank  inequality  is  avoided.  But  in  fact  no  method  has  been  devised 
or  suggested  by  which  this  gross  wrong  can  be  prevented,  and  the  fee- 
ble attempts  which  have  been  made  in  this  direction  only  combine  the 
evils  of  both  systems  with  the  advantages  of  neither.  The  compound 
system  of  u50  cents  a pound  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem”  has  no  de- 
fenders who  dare  to  state  their  reasons  in  public.  The  more  accepted 
method  is,  as  in  the  case  of  steel,  to  fix  a specific  rate,  of,  say,  3 cents 
a pound  on  metal  worth  10  cents,  4 cents  on  metal  worth  12  .cents, 
and  so  on.  I write  without  a copy  of  the  tariff,  and  do  not  aim  to  give 


432  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


exact  figures.  Now,  it  is  plain  that  such  a scale  offers  greater  temptations 
toa  slight  undervaluation  of  12-cent  steel  than  would  ever  be  given  by  a 
purely  ad  valorem  Tariff' of  30  per  cent.,  because  an  undervaluation  of  only 
5 per  cent,  would  save  one  cent  of  the  specific  duty,  whereas  it  would 
save  only  one-fifth  of  a cent  under  the  purely  ad  valorem  system.  This 
. so-called  specific  system  has,  therefore,  inevitably  been  the  source  of 
greater  frauds  than  any  other.  It  is  also  attended  with  the  disadvan- 
tage of  putting  a premium  on  the  importation  of  an  inferior  class  of 
goods.  Thus,  in  the  case  already  supposed,  which  is  substantially  real, 
the  maker  of  the  12-cent  grade  of  steel  is  offered  a bonus  of  1 cent 
per  pound  as  an  inducement  to  degrade  its  quality  by  the  trifle  neces- 
sary to  bring  its  cost  just  below  the  12-cent  standard.  The  only  way 
in  which  these  evils  can  be  avoided  under  the  specific  system  is  by  put- 
ting the  same  duty  upon  all  grades  of  steel.  When  this  is  done  steel 
worth  1 cent  a pound  must  pay  the  same  tax  as  steel  worth  12  cents.  This 
will  not  only  be  a gross  and  flagrant  inequality,  but  it  will  also  bring 
about  the  instant  ruin  of  many  important  domestic  manufactures 
which  depend  upon  the  cheap  grades  of  steel.  Even  the  famous  con- 
ference committee  which  secretly  concocted  the  tariff  of  1883  could  not 
be  persuaded  by  the  steel  lobby  of  that  day  to  perpetrate  such  an  out- 
rage. It  may  therefore  be  taken  as  certain  that  every  tariff  of  specific 
duties  which  can  be  forced  through  Congress  will  not  only  be  unequal 
in  its  operation,  but  will  also  offer  special  inducements  to  fraud  and  to 
the  deterioration  of  imported  goods  such  as  no  ad  valorem  tariff 
ever  did. 

In  the  next  place,  it  is  self-evident  that  specific  duties  must  bear 
more  severely  on  the  poor  than  on  the  rich.  The  woolen  duties  are  a 
signal  instance  of  this.  Under  the  tariff  of  1867  the  tax  on  woolen 
goods  of  the  kind  usually  worn  by  farmers  and  mechanics  was  from 
100  to  200  per  cent.,  and  so  prohibitory.  In  the  tariff  of  1883  an  effort 
was  made  to  relieve  the  law  of  this  stigma,  with  the  result  of  reducing 
the  tax  on  the  clothing  of  the  poor  to  about  85  per  cent.,  which  is  still 
prohibitory.  But  as  the  tax  on  the  clothing  of  the  rich  is  now  less  than 
60  per  cent.,  as  agaiust  70  per  cent,  before,  the  inequality  remains  sub- 
stantially as  before. 

Again,  a specific  tariff  on  manufactures  is  a perpetually  rising  one. 
It  has  an  automatic  tendency  towards  excessive  duties  and  positive  pro- 
hibition. The  progress  of  invention  tends  continually  to  cheapen  the 
cost  of  manufacture.  Specific  duties  become,  year  after  year,  more  and 
more  heavy  in  proportion  to  the  cost  of  production,  until  in  a very  few 
years  a tax  which  was  meant  to  be.  the  equivalent  of  25  per  cent,  becomes 
one  of  100  or  even  250  per  cent.  The  result  is  that  in  many  cases  our 
country  is  absolutely  and  utterly  deprived  of  valuable  improvements 
which  are  in  full  use  in  Europe,  and  in  a far  greater  number  of  cases 
a monopoly  is  given  to  the  few  makers  of  similar  articles  here.  For  ex- 
ample, specific  duties  have  utterly  excluded  from  this  country  the  many 
articles  of  hard  glass,  including  glass  sleepers  for  railroads,  made  in 
Belgium;  have  deprived  us  of  all  the  benefit  of  the  Gilchrist  Thomas 
process  in  steel,  and  enabled  the  owners  of  thirteen  mills  to  make  a 
profit  of  much  more  than  $13,000,000  out  of  Bessemer  steel.  Not  one 
of  these  results  was  intended  by  Congress  when  fixing  the  rates  of 
duties  on  these  articles;  and,  reckless  as  Congress  has  been  in  the  past, 
it  is  almost  certain  that  not  one-fifth  of  either  house  would  have  voted 
for  taxes  avowedly  intended  to  have  such  an  effect.  These  monstrosi- 
ties could  only  be  produced  by  inflexible  specific  duties,  and  precisely 
similar  results  will  follow  in  less  than  five  years  after  the  establishment 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


433 


of  any  specific  duties  upon  a large  scale  with  respect  to  almost  any 
branch  of  manufacture  in  which  the  spirit  of  invention  is  active. 

It  is  always  the  natural  impulse  of  officials  to  favor  a system  of  rev- 
enue which  will  make  their  tasks  easy;  but  in  this,  as  in  many  other 
instances,  official  ease  means  public  hardship.  Importers,  too,  are  much 
more  concerned  to  secure  simplicity  and  equality  in  their  own  transac- 
tions than  to  protect  the  public  against  excessive  taxation,  since  no 
exorbitancy  of  taxation  which  stops  short  of  an  entire  destruction 
of  the  home  demand  appeals  to  their  selfish  interest,  as  they  collect 
from  their  customers  all  the  tax,  with  a profit  on  the  outlay.  But  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  Government  to  accommodate  its  methods  to  the  needs 
and  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  to  spare  no  pains  to  devise  and  carry 
out  a system  of  collecting  the  revenue  which  will  secure  equality  among 
honest  importers  without  producing  inequality  among  consumers. 

An  ad  valorem  tariff  is  the  only  one  which  is  fair  to  the  people  at 
large ; and  it  is  an  entire  mistake  to  suppose  that  it  cannot  be  made  to 
operate  fairly  among  importers.  It  was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  ex- 
perienced importers  in  1882,  when  appearing  before  the  Tariff  Commis- 
sion, that  the  amount  of  undervaluation  which  would  take  place  under 
a moderate  ad  valorem  tariff,  imposing  duties  not  exceeding  25  or  30 
per  cent.,  was  so  small  as  to  be  unworthy  of  consideration.  The  danger 
of  exposure  and  of  the  imposition  of  the  usual  penalty  is  sufficient  to 
deter  importers  from  frauds  which  could  not  possibly  make  for  them  a 
large  profit,  and  which  might  easily  result  in  three  or  four  times  the 
amount  of  loss.  A reduction  of  the  monstrous  impositions  of  the  exist- 
ing tariff  is  therefore  all  that  is  strictly  necessary  to  put  an  end  to  under- 
valuations. 

But  suppose  that  something  more  is  required,  is  it  not  easy  to  arrange 
a system  of  official  valuations,  by  which  the  prices  of  similar  articles 
shall  be  fixed  at  uniform  rates,  ascertained  monthly  or  quarterly,  and 
stated  in  an  order  of  the  Treasury  Department  published  for  general 
information?  It  is  possible  that  this  could  not  be  done  for  every  de- 
scription of  merchandise,  but  it  could  be  done  in  so  many  cases  as  to 
narrow  the  field  of  possible  undervaluation  to  such  small  limits  as  to  en- 
able the  officials  in  charge  of  such  matters  to  confine  their  labors  to  a 
very  few  articles,  with  a consequent  increased  probability  of  success. 

A combination  of  these  two  simple  reforms,  the  reduction  of  duties 
to  a moderate  standard  and  a uniform  official  valuation  where  possible, 
would  put  an  end  to  nine- tenths  of  the  frauds  of  undervaluation,  and 
make  it  comparatively  easy  to  detect  the  remainder.  If  the  manufact- 
urers and  importers  will  not  allow  this  to  be  done,  it  is  better  that  things 
should  be  left  as  they  are,  for  the  people  at  large  now  have  the  benefit 
of  most  of  the  cheapness  arising  from  undervaluation,  as  the  competi- 
tion between  dishonest  importers  will  always  be  active  enough  to  secure 
to  their  customers  the  larger  share  of  the  reduction  in  duty ; the  Govern- 
ment will  be  sure  to  get  what  it  needs,  and  the  only  persons  who  really 
suffer  are  the  two  powerful  classes  who  alone  stand  in  the  way  of  the 
reforms  which  would  cure  the  whole  trouble. 

With  great  respect,  I remain  your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  G.  SHEARMAN. 


S.  Ex.  72 28 


434  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

[Manufacturers  of  Rhode  Island,  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties.'] 

Providence,  E.  I.,  October  22, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir  : At  a meeting  of  manufacturers  aucl  other  business  men,  held  in 
Providence  August  31, 1885,  there  being  in  attendance  prominent  mem- 
bers of  both  political  parties,  and  many  who  had  received  copies  of  your 
circular  letter  of  July  last,  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted,  of 
which  we  herewith  send  you  a copy,  and  we  were  further  directed  by 
the  meeting  to  acknowledge  and  reply  to  your  esteemed  letter. 

We  shall  not  feel  justified,  in  this  communication,  in  presenting  any 
argument  for  the  general  theory  of  protection  or  concerning  the  ade- 
quacy or  inadequacy  of  existing  tariff  schedules  for  proper  protection  to 
industry,  for  the  reason  that  your  inquiry  seems  to  invite  our  opinion 
only  as  to  plans  for  efficient  and  honest  collection  of  customs  duties, 
whatever  their  scale. 

We  beg  leave  to  assure  you,  in  the  first  place,  that,  in  your  evident  de- 
sire and  intention  to  rigidly  enforce  the  laws  for  the  honest  collection 
of  duties  upon  imports,  and  especially  to  overthrow  the  long  established 
and  deeply  intrenched  system  of  fraud  upon  the  revenue  and  upon  all 
honest  industry  whether  manufacturing  or  commercial,  by  undervalua- 
tions of  imported  merchandise,  you  have  our  sympathy  and  gratitude, 
and  are  entitled  to  every  form  and  degree  of  assistance  that  we  are  able 
to  render. 

As  you  kindly  invite  information  as  to  the  character  and  extent  of 
current  fraud  by  undervaluation,  as  well  as  concerning  methods  for  its 
suppression,  we  would  say  that  the  conviction  is  very  general  among 
Ehode  Island  business  men  that  this  class  of  fraud  prevails  as  to  nearly 
all  kinds  of  imports  whereon  ad  valorem  duties  are  assessed,  and  that 
its  magnitude  is  heavy.  Especially  does  the  abuse  prevail  as  to  mer- 
chandise imported  as  actual  property  of  foreign  owners  and  handled 
solely  for  their  account  and  profit.  In  our  opiuion,  the  suppression  of 
such  frauds  was  greatly  weakened  by  the  action  of  the  Forty-third 
Congress  concerning  the  law  known  as  the  u moiety  law,”  to  which 
action  we  will  take  the  liberty  to  make  further  reference. 

The  plan  of  specific  rather  than  ad  valorem  duties  is  manifestly  sound 
in  principle,  especially  because  of  the  greater  simplicity  and  accur- 
acy of  administration,  and  this  whether  dealing  with  honest  or  dishonest 
importers.  So  far  as  concerns  the  industries  with  which  the  business 
men  of  Ehode  Island  are  personally  conversant,  an  embarrassment  in 
attempting  to  formulate  any  complete  s'clierae  of  specific  duties  is  in  the 
many  grades  of  each  class  of  goods  that  are  manufactured,  and  especi- 
ally because  of  special  enterprise  in  behalf  of  goods  of  finer  grades  than 
have  usually  been  made  in  this  country.  While  we  by  no  means  assume 
that  no  additions  should  be  made  to  the  schedules  of  manufactured 
goods  dutiable  at  specific  rates,  we  are  of  the  opinion,  as  to  classes  of 
goods  similar  to  general  Ehode  Island  products,  that  the  substitution  of 
specific  for  ad  valorem  duties  has  been  carried  as  far  by  the  legislation 
of  1883  as  would  be,  at  present,  profitable  or  advisable. 

A careful  comparision  of  the  tariff  laws  as  in  force  March  3,  1883, 
wfith  the  new  law  as  passed  on  that  day,  shows  the  whole  number  of 
rates  of  duty  named  under  the  old  tariff  to  be  741,  and  under  the  new 
tariff  641,  the  excess  in  number  of  rates  in  the  old  tariff  being  100,  or 
16  per  cent. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  435 

When  classified  as  to  the  kind  of  duty  each  tariff  imposes  it  appears 
that — 

The  old  has  344  specific,  324  ad  valorem,  and  73  compound. 

The  new  has  360  specific,  250  ad  valorem,  and  31  compound. 

Or  showing  it  in  per  centum  : The  old  has  46  per  cent,  specific  and 
54  per  cent  ad  valorem  and  compound ; the  new  has  56  per  cent  specific 
and  44  per  cent,  ad  valorem  and  compound,  the  excess  in  the  old  over 
the  new  tariff  of  ad  valorem  and  compound  rates  being  116  in  number, 
or  41  per  cent,  of  the  whole,  and  the  number  of  u compound  rates,’7  that 
especial  source  of  annoyance  and  perplexity,  being  reduced  from  73  to 
31. 

We  submit  that  this  presentation  shows  a long  stride  not  only  in  the 
very  important  line  of  simplification,  but  in  large  substitution  of  specific 
for  ad  valorem  rates,  and  that  it  therefore  justifies  a pause  in  tariff  leg- 
islation until  by  the  restoration  of  business  to  a normal  condition  it 
may  be  possible  to  place  accurate  estimates  on  the  results  of  what  has 
so  lately  been  accomplished.  We  herein  assume  as  a just  principle  of 
industrial  legislation,  that  any  abnormal  standard  of  values,  whether 
because  of  extreme  depression  or  extreme  inflation  of  business,  is  in- 
evitably conducive  to  inaccurate  conclusions,  and,  therefore,  that  care 
should  be  taken  to  utilize  as  standards  of  business  or  values  only  normal 
conditions  thereof. 

We  recognize  in  your  letter  a disposition  to  consider  a scale  of  duties 
on  imports  based  upon  the  consideration  of  the  excess  of  cost  of  Amer- 
ican over  foreign  labor  of  similar  class,  a principle  eminently  sound, 
although  its  correct  application  calls  for  quite  intricate  computations. 
Many  tables  have  been  prepared,  of  which  illustrations  are  presented 
in  United  States  census  reports,  but  such  tables  if  incomplete  are  likely 
to  lead  to  quite  erroneous  conclusions.  This  special  liability  to  inaccu- 
racy is  because,  with  a very  large  majority  of  our  manufacturers,  what 
stands  to  them  as  a foundation  supply  is  advanced,  often  by  many  stages 
from  the  condition  of  raw  material,  being  the  cumulation  of  the  entire 
labor  of  possibly  several  preceding  manufacturers,  so  that  while  indi- 
vidual pay-rolls  of  many  manufacturers  show  only  a small  proportion 
of  entire  cost  of  product  to  be  labor,  the  prime  cost  of  actual  raw  material 
at  its  entrance  of  the  first  stage  of  progress  will  not  unlikely  be  but  10 
per  cent,  or  even  les’s  of  the  cost  of  the  fabric  as  ready  for  the  market. 
We  sincerely  hope  that  this  very  important  element  of  the  problem  at 
issue  will  receive  careful  consideration,  or  erroneous  conclusions  will 
be  probable. 

The  unit  of  payment  for  specified  labor  in  piece-work  is  readily  avail- 
able, as  is  the  amount  of  average  weekly  earnings  of  each  class  of  em- 
ployment, and  these  points  are  so  fully  presented  in  the  reports  of  the 
Massachusetts  Bureau  of  the  Statistics  of  Labor,  for  1884  and  1885,  com- 
piled by  Hon.  Carroll  D.  Wright,  that  our  own  statement  in  similar  be- 
half would  of  necessity  cover  substantially  the  same  ground,  because 
pertaining  largely  to  similar  class  of  industries.  An  especially  valuable 
feature  of  this  compilation  is  that  it  supplies  in  very  well-arranged 
tables  the  opportunity  for  comparison,  side  by  side,  of  the  cost  of  direct 
labor  in  the  United  States  with  that  in  Great  Britain,  which  country,  as 
you  are  aware,  stands  as  a representative  of  the  highest  rank  of  European 
labor  rates.  We  respectfully  ask  you  to  note  also  that  there  are  con- 
siderations not  represented  in  any  pay-roll  that  should  equitably  be 
weighed  in  the  study  of  the  problem  as  to  relative  cost  to  manufacture 
in  the  Old  World  and  the  New.  We  refer  not  only  to  iuterest  and  de- 
preciation on  account  of  the  inevitable  larger  cost  of  American  plant 


436  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


both  for  buildings  and  machinery,  but  also  to  the  fact  that  it  is  an  almost 
imperative  claim  on  our  civilization  that  far  more  costly  provision  be 
made  for  the  health  and  comfort  of  employes  than  is  demanded  or  sup- 
plied in  most  European  countries. 

Referring  again  to  the  “ moiety  law,”  important  provisions  of  which 
were  repealed  by  the  43d  Congress,  we  by  no  means  assume  the  perfectness 
of  that  law  as  originally  drawn,  nor  do  we  forget  the  grave  abuses  un- 
der it,  but  inasmuch  as  its  foundation  principle  seems  sound  and  in 
harmony  with  the  general  experience  of  other  nations,  we  cannot  but 
think  that  the  repeal  of  its  vital  features,  however  the  law  may  have 
needed  amendment  in  some  details,  was  a serious  impairment  of  facility 
for  the  honest  collection  of  Government  dues.  We  believe  that  laws 
similar  in  principle  and  purpose  to  the  u moiety  law”  are  calculated 
to  greatly  advance  the  end  you  seek  to  promote,  in  furnishing  ma- 
chinery indispensable  to  successful  combat  with  the  frauds  under  con- 
sideration. 


The  present  depressed  and  unprofitable  condition  of  manufactures 
and  general  trade  is  likely  to  be  still  further  increased  by  the  agitation 
for  a change  in  the  public  policy  which  has  become  part  of  the  founda- 
tion upon  which  those  interests  rest.  To  restore  confidence  it  is  neces- 
sary that  all  elements  of  uncertainty  shall  be  kept  at  the  minimum,  as 
a measure  of  prudence  applicable  alike  to  the  statesman  and  business- 
man, and  furthermore  the  opinion  is  prevalent  that  the  detailed  infor- 
mation sought,  if  obtained  under  the  present  abnormal  condition  of 
business,  would,  as  a basis  of  legislation,  be  unjust  to  both  capital  and 
labor. 

In  conclusion,  we  assure  you  that  the  manufacturers  of  Rhode  Island 
have  undergone  a very  severe  strain  during  a long  period  of  depression, 
and  that,  with  all  the  advantage  attaching  to  the  fact  that  the  manage- 
ment of  our  factories  and  a large  measure  of  the  capital  employed  is  in 
the  hands  of  men  thoroughly  trained  to  their  business  by  actual  working 
experience,  men  who  began  at  the  foot  of  the  ladder  and  are  practically 
skilled  in  every  department  of  their  work,  it  has  been  only  by  hQavy 
sacrifice  that  labor  has  been  employed  and  paid  for  these  many  months 
past.  Although  the  horizon  seems  to  have  brightened,  the  strain  of 
anxiety  has  not  yet  been  removed,  and  the  current  expectation  of  leg- 
islation, as  to  which  few  of  its  advocates  give  any  sign  of  harmony  of 
views,  provokes  serious  alarm  and  promises  to  greatly  check  the  much- 
needed  revival  of  business.  The  present  laws  are  not  perfect  nor  alto- 
gether satisfactory,  but  we  think  the  feeling  to  be  well-nigh  unanimous 
that  the  present  is  an  especially  inopportune  time  for  tariff  legislation, 
and  that  the  interests,  not  only  of  capital  and  labor  employed  in  manu- 
facturing, but  of  nearly  every  form  of  enterprise,  will  be  promoted  by  a 
postponement  of  any  general  tariff  revision. 

We  remain,  with  much  respect,  yours,  truly, 

0.  R.  Cutler.  % ' Robert  Knight. 

Henry  B.  Metcalf.  F.  E.  Richmond. 

Royal  C.  Taft.  A.  B.  Chace. 

F.  H.  Richmond.  Jos.  E.  Cole. 

Edward  P.  Taft.  Fred.  I.  Marcy. 

W.  T.  Nicholson.  Stephen  A.  Jenks. 

W.  F.  Sayles.  Hezekiah  Conant. 

Geo.  H.  Corliss.  . Horatio  Rogers. 

Chas.  Fletcher. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


437 


Resolutions  adopted  at  a meeting  of  manufacturers  and  other  business  men  held  in 
Providence,  R.  I.,  August  31,  1885,  whereof  the  Hon.  Charles  R.  Cutler  was  chair- 
man and  Horatio  Rogers  secretary,  referred  to  in  the  accompanying  letter,  viz : 

Whereas  the  industries  of  Rhode  Island  have  been  subjected  to  a long  period  of  de- 
pression, severely  taxing  the  resources  of  both  the  manufacturers  and  their  employ6s, 
commercial  confidence  haviDg  been  universally  impaired  ; and 
Whereas,  although  there  are  indicatious  of  a more  hopeful  state  of  affairs,  all  in- 
dustrial enterprise  is  still  in  a condition  of  extreme  sensitiveness;  and 
Whereas  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  addressed  to  many  of  us  a 
circular  letter  which  seems  to  contemplate  a plan  of  general  tariff  revision  at  the 
coming  session  of  Congress ; and 

Whereas  we  believe  that  any  such  attempted  general  revision  of  the  tariff  would  be 
exceedingly  disastrous  to  the  entire  industrial  interests  of  the  country: 

Resolved,  That  this  meeting  hereby  enters  its  respectful  protest  against  any  reopen- 
ing of  tariff  agitation  at  the  coming  session  of  Congress. 

After  the  adoption  of  the  above  resolutions  the  following  were  appointed  a committee 
to  frame  a reply  to  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury’s  circular  dated  July,  1885, 
in  regard  to  tariff  revision,  viz:  Messrs.  C.  R.  Cutler,  Henry  B.  Metcalf,  William  F. 
Sayles,  William  T.  Nicholson,  F.  E.  Richmond,  Charles  Fletcher,  Stephen  A.  Jenks, 
Royal  C.  Taft,  Arnold  B.  Chace,  Robert  Knight,  F.  H.  Richmond,  Hezekiah  Conant, 
Edward  P.  Taft,  George  H.  Corliss,  Fred.  I.  Marcy,  Joseph  E.  Cole,  and  Horatio 
Rogers. 

Attest : 

HORATIO  ROGERS, 

Secretary, 


[William  M.  Singerly,  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties.'] 

Philadelphia,  July  24, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury , Washington , T).  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : My  answer  to  your  inquiries  is  on  the  general  subject 
rather  than  any  specific  information  as  to  special  branches  of  manufact- 
ure. 

The  question  of  ad  valorem  or  specific  duties  turns  almost  together 
upon  the  ability  of  the  Government  to  collect  ad  valorem  taxes.  It  is 
the  fair  * method  of  taxation  and  should  only  be  abandoned  when  it  is 
found  impossible  to  guard  against  frauds  and  undervaluations. 

If  the  custom-houses  are  put  into  the  hands  of  business  men  fitted 
for  the  discharge  of  their  duties  it  is  hardly  to  be  doubted  but  that  the 
taxes  can  be  collected  with  satisfaction  and  justice. 

Nothing  seems  more  arbitrary  than  a fixed  duty  upon  an  article  sub- 
ject to  constant  changes  in  value. 

To  my  mind  the  first  and  all  important  step,  to  make  a change  in  the 
tariff,  should  be  the  repeal  of  duties  on  the  raw  materials  of  manufact- 
ure. This  country  needs  free  wool,  coal,  ores,  jute,  hemp,  lumber,  salt, 
and  dyestuffs.  If  this  would  increase  the  revenues,  then  duties  on  sugar 
and  other  necessaries  can  be  decreased. 

Taxes  on  raw  materials  are  inconsistent  even  with  the  theory  of  pro- 
tection. They  shut  us  out  from  all  markets  when  our  own  is  glutted 
by  overproduction.  The  element  of  cost,  by  reason  of  the  tax  on  raw 
material,  kills  us. 

The  taxes  on  the  articles  named  are  distinctly  disadvantageous  to 
the  people  of  Philadelphia,  Eastern  Pennsylvnia,  and  adjacent  States. 
The  taxes  on  iron  ore  and  coal  operate  as  a means  of  perpetuating  dis- 
criminations against  this  city  in  the  freight  charges  by  the  railroads. 
The  Government  gets  from  these  but  a small  revenue,  but  the  exactions 
of  the  railroad  companies  amount  to  millions  a year. 


438  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


The  change  from  a protective  to  a straight  revenue  tariff  must  neces- 
sarily be  slow.  It  should  not  be  violent;  our  business  people  have  been 
wheedled  into  investments  through  faulty  legislation.  The  repeal  of 
the  taxes  on  raw  materials  would  be  welcomed  by  our  manufacturers, 
and  would  be  the  beginning  for  future  changes,  which  it  would  be  un- 
wise to  attempt  at  present. 

We  are,  I believe,  the  only  Government  in  the  world  which  handicaps 
her  manufacturers,  and  calls  it  protection  to  American  industry. 

I am,  truly,  yours, 

WILLIAM  M.  SINGERLY. 


[Columbus  Delano,  tariff  legislation.  ] » 

Washington,  D.  C.,  August  4,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : I infer  from  your  circular  of  July  18,  1885,  that  your  De- 
partment will  recommend  a revision  of  our~tariff  laws  at  the  next  ses- 
sion of  Congress  with  a view  to  “ the  improvement  of  the  customs-rev- 
enue system,”  as  expressed  in  the  circular.  I think  it  more  than,  prob- 
able that  you  contemplate  important  changes  in  our  “ customs-revenue 
system  ” besides  those  that  are  necessary  to  correct  frauds  which  result 
from  undervaluation. 

The  interrogations  asking  information  upon  specified  subjects  con- 
tained in  your  circular  seem  to  justify  this  conclusion.  What  these 
proposed  changes  will  be,  in  substance  or  in  detail,  I do  not  know,  and 
therefore  I do  not  assume  to  conjecture.  But  notwithstanding  this  ig- 
norance, it  seems  to  me  that  your  circular  clearly  discloses  enough  to 
justify  any  one  who  is  interested  in  the  prosperity  and  welfare  of  our 
nation  in  saying  what  he  deems  worthy  to  be  said  on  the  important  sub- 
ject to  which  his  attention  has  been  invited  by  the  officer  who  admin- 
isters the  financial  department  of  this  Government. 

I will  therefore  state  some  reasons  which  lead  me  to  apprehend  that 
more  evil  than  good  is  likely  to  result  from  your  circular. 

Instability  in  legislation  affecting  the  business  and  industries  of  the 
people  is  injurious  to  the  public  welfare  at  all  times.  Since  the  tariff 
legislation  of  1883  a cloud  of  uncertainty  has  been  suspended  over  our 
heads,  which  has  alarmed  capital,  paralyzed  enterprise,  and  reduced 
the  demand  for  labor  ; and  to  this  cause  more  than  is  generally  sup- 
posed we  are  indebted  for  the  present  stagnation  in  all  industrial  pur- 
suits, for  the  non-employment  of  labor,  and  for  the  discontent  and  un- 
friendly combinations  among  workingmen  which  so  seriously  and  fre- 
quently endanger  the  welfare  of  society. 

Overproduction  has  not  weakened  prices — reduced  consumption  has 
done  this. 

How  can  the  workingmen  of  the  country  be  consumers  when  they 
are  without  employment,  or  in  receipt  of  wages  so  small  as  to  forbid 
their  enjoyment  of  such  physical  comforts  as  our  civilization  demands  ? 

The  agitation  of  the  tariff  revision — so  uncertain  in  its  objects  and 
aims  as  your  circular  leaves  it — cannot  fail,  I think,  to  increase  the  em- 
barrassments of  our  business  pursuits,  both  financial  and  industrial. 

If,  however,  it  shall  appear,  when  your  purposes  are  fully  and  clearly 
made  known,  that  you  intend  to  change  in  order  to  “improve”  our  “cus- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  439 

torus-revenue  system,”  the  industries  of  the  nation  will  at  once  inquire 
into  the  nature  of  these  changes. 

Rumor  now  fills  them  with  apprehension,  by  asserting  that  the  vol- 
ume of  revenue  is  to  be  reduced  some  forty  millions  of  dollars — that  pro- 
tection as  a principle  resting  on  a true  economic  policy,  in  financial  leg- 
islation, will  be  denied,  and  that  protection  will  be  given  to  such  indus- 
tries only  as  may  be  able  to  command  the  favor  of  Congress. 

The  ruin  to  American  industries  which  will  follow  such  a policy  when 
adopted  is  certain  and  unavoidable. 

It  will  also  be  swift.  It  may,  indeed  it  must  be,  in  part  anticipated 
for  reasons  already  stated.  The  errors  which  sustain  this  policy  if  it 
be  proposed  deserve  a moment’s  consideration. 

If  the  principle  of  protection  to  American  industries  by  economic 
legislation  cannot  be  sustained  by  sound  argument  it  should  be  aban- 
doned as  erroneous. 

If  such  protection  can  be  sustained  by  reasons  that  ought  to  govern 
wise  legislation,  why  should  it  be  limited  by  the  demand  for  revenue? 
Why  not  collect  all  revenue  from  internal  sources  and  give  no  protec- 
tion ? Or  at  least,  why  attempt  the  protection  of  any  industry  by  an  ad- 
justment of  customs  duties  for  that  purpose  if  it  be  not  right  and  proper 
to  foster  and  encourage  all  American  industrial  pursuits  that  can  be 
profitably  followed  by  our  people. 

It  would  be  monstrously  absurd  to  say*  we  will  collect  revenue  from 
customs  duties  in  order  to  enable  us  by  those  duties  to  protect  certain 
favored  industries,  but  we  deny  the  propriety  of  all  economic  legisla- 
tion that  attempts  protection  for  the  sake  of  protection. 

If  protection  is  not  due  to  the  labor  and  industrial  pursuits  of  this 
country  for  the  sake  of  encouraging  such  industries,  and  paying  such 
labor  fair  and  reasonable  wages,  then  they  deserve  and  should  have  no 
protection,  either  by  direct  legislation  intended  for  that  purpose,  or  in- 
cidentally by  the  futile,  uncertain,  and  unequal  results  that  will  attend 
all  efforts  to  adjust  a tariff  for  revenue  to  the  idea  of  incidental  protec- 
tion. 

I apprehend  that  a tariff  for  revenue  means  free  trade,  as  a final  re- 
sult. It  is  proposed  as  an  anodyne,  to  ease  pain  during  the  operation 
which  is  to  cut  off  all  our  limbs  and  branches  of  industry,  leaving  us  a 
helpless,  naked  trunk,  unable  to  resist  the  assaults  of  cheap  foreign 
labor  and  unlimited  foreign  capital. 

Mr.  Secretary,  I wish  to  invite  your  attention  to  one  or  two  further 
considerations.  An  individual,  a family,  or  a nation,  that  buys  and 
consumes  more  than  it  produces  becomes  debtor  to  the  extent  of  the  dif- 
ference ; and  by  this  principle  you  can  safely  measure  our  national 
prosperity.  We  have  large  and  varied  natural  resources,  an  intelligent, 
industrious  people  capable  of  developing  these  resources,  a laboring 
class  that  demands  decent  clothing,  comfortable  houses,  and  tables  that 
have  a fair  supply  of  the  necessaries  of  life.  If  you  will,  by  wise  eco- 
nomic legislation,  secure  to  our  people  the  control  of  the  home  markets 
for  all  products  of  industry  which  they  can  naturally  and  profitably 
supply,  you  will  enable  them  to  produce  more  than  they  purchase  and 
consume,  and  as  a nation  we  shall  become  a creditor  and  not  a debtor. 
Our  laboring  classes  will  have  employment,  with  homes,  raiment,  and 
food,  such  as  our  civilization  demands,  and  prosperity  will  attend  our 
progress.  But  if  our  markets  are  subjected  to  the  competition  on  equal 
terms  of  the  products  of  the  cheap  labor  and  abundant  capital  of  foreign 
nations  they  will  be  monopolized  by  the  people  of  other  countries,  and 
you  will  not  see,  I fear,  such  prosperity  here  as  I am  sure  your  patriotism 


440  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


and  love  of  country  make  you  anxious  to  behold.  Do  not  be  deceived 
by  the  theory  that  giving  to  our  producers  the  command  of  the  home 
markets  will  increase  prices  to  consumers,  for  all  experience  serves  to 
demonstrate  this  truth,  that  domestic  competition  will  reduce  the  price 
of  all  articles  to  the  minimum  cost  at  which  they  can  be  produced. 

In  conclusion,  I beg  to  remind  you  that  a tariff  for  revenue  does  not 
mean  protection,  incidental  or  otherwise. 

It  means  this,  if  anything  : that  you  assess  duties  to  the  extent  the 
article  will  bear  without  embarrassing  its  importation,  and  thus,  by  open- 
ing our  markets  to  foreigners  and  courting  importations  through  re- 
duced rates  of  duty,  the  revenue  is  increased  and  room  created  for  en- 
larging the  free  list,  the  principle  of  protection  being  denied. 

If  it  is  expected  that  we  may  conciliate  England  by  a policy  which 
opens  our  markets  to  her  products,  and  that  she  will  then  purchase  more 
freely  our  breadstuff's  or  meats,  nothing  can  be  more  fallacious.  England 
buys  nothing  of  us  that  she  is  not  compelled  to  purchase.  She  never 
offered  us  free  trade  until  her  food  necessities  required  it,  and  then  only 
after  two  hundred  years  of  a protective  policy  to  her  industries  had 
enabled  her  with  her  cheap  labor  to  successfully  compete  with  the  in- 
dustries of  all  nations.  And  pursuing  this  wise,  self-reliant  policy,  she 
has  nearly  completed  her  plans  for  procuring  her  breadstuff's  hereafter 
from  the  East,  so  that  soon  she  will  cease  to  purchase  these  largely 
from  us. 

No  nation  understands  better  than  England  the  necessity  of  preserv- 
ing a balance  ot  trade  in  its  own  favor;  and  none  is  more  careful  to 
prevent  her  importations,  if  possible,  from  exceeding  her  exports. 

Trusting  that  in  all  that  you  do,  and  in  all  that  is  done  by  the  pres- 
ent administration,  the  welfare  and  best  interests  of  the  people  of 
these  States  may  be  promoted,  and  assuring  you  that  these  observations 
are  made  with  the  single  purpose  of  forwarding  these  objects  and  in  no 
other  spirit, 

1 am,  with  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

G.  DELANO. 


[Gibson,  Parish  & Co.,  specific  duties.'] 

Chicago,  September  7, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.  : 

Dear  Sir  : We  desire  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  communication 
bearing  date  of  July  27 ; contents  relative  to  the  evils,  and  remedies 
therefor,  of  existing  revenue  system. 

In  replj  to  inquiry  contained  therein,  we  will  state  that  we  are  une- 
quivocally in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  specific  duties.  In  this  course  we 
recognize  the  only  available  way  to  effectually  defeat  the  deeply  laid 
schemes  of  fraudulent  importers  now  so  prevalent  and  injurious  under 
ad  valorem  laws  now  in  existence. 

Eespecting  desired  schedule  will  say  that  we  have  been  unable  to 
give  this  portion  of  your  communication  sufficient  attention  and  investi- 
gation to  enable  us  to  act  in  accordance  with  your  suggestion. 

Very  respectfully, 

GIBSON,  PARISH  & CO., 
Per  R.  H.  PARKER. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF 


441 


[Office  of  D.  Black  & Co.,  specific  duties.'] 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  July  31,  1885. 
Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Washington : 

Dear  Sir  : Replying  to  your  favor  of  23d  instant,  would  say  that  we 
have  been  importing  silks,  satins,  and  silk  plushes,  and  found  that  we 
were  undersold  by  the  agents,  in  New  York,  of  European  manufact- 
urers. We  have  no  doubt  that  undervaluation  has  given  them  undue 
advantages. 

An  ad  valorem  duty  means  a premium  to  foreign  manufacturers  as 
against  American  importers.  A specific  duty  would  virtually  exclude 
the  coarser  grades,  and  the  finer  grades  would  be  but  lightly  taxed, 
which,  in  our  opinion,  would  be  unjust  to  American  manufacturers.  A 
mixed  duty  would,  in  our  opinion,  be  the  best  we  can  get,  as  our  expe- 
rience in  ready-made  garments  proves.  In  that  article  the  undervalua- 
tion can  be  but  small,  and  will  not  pay  for  the  risk. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

D.  BLACK  & CO. 


[Meyer  Brothers  & Co.,  specific  duties.] 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  August  3,  1185. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Department , Washington , D.  C.  : 

Sir  : We  beg  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  circular  letter  dated 
the  27th  ultimo,  in  which  you  ask  us  for  our  opinion  as  to  the  best 
method  of  imposing  duties,  whether  ad  valorem  or  specific.  In  reply  we 
beg  to  state  that,  in  our  opinion,  specific  duties  are  to  be  preferred  to 
ad  valorem  duties,  at  least  as  far  as  articles  we  are  familiar  with  are 
concerned. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

MEYER  BROS.  & CO. 


[The  same.] 

Saint  Louis,  Mo.,  September  30, 1885. 

Sir:  Referring  to  your  favor  of  the  19th  instant,  we  beg  to  state 
that  our  communication  of  the  3d  August  was  prompted  by  the  consid- 
eration that  in  our  line  of  business  purity  and  prime  quality  of  nearly 
all  articles  imported  are  matters  of  the  utmost  importance;  that  the 
imposition  of  ad  valorem  duties  on  such  goods  places  a temptation  be- 
fore their  manufacturers  and  dealers  to  adulterate  or  otherwise  lower 
the  standard  of  their  preparations  in  order  to  lessen  their  dutiable  value. 
A specific  duty,  on  the  contrary,  would  leave  no  such  inducement,  in- 
asmuch as  it  would  give  no  advantage  to  manufacturers  to  send  into 
the  United  States  any  but  the  purest  articles.  This  reasoning,  we  be- 
lieve, will  specially  apply  to  all  medicines,  wines,  brandies,  and  medi- 
cinal oils,  such  as  cod-liver  and  olive  oils. 

W e remain,  very  respectfully, 


MEYER  BROS.  & CO. 


442  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[E.  & S.  Nordlinger,  specific  duties  and  damage  allowances.'] 

Baltimore,  August  14, 1885. 

Daniel  Manning,  Esq., 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States , Washington , D.  C. : 
Dear  Sir:  Your  circular  of  24th  ultimo  is  at  hand,  and  we  have 
taken  much  interest  in  the  tariff  question  you  speak  of.  We  are  in  favor 
of  specific  duty  in  any  line  of  goods,  as  too  much  undervaluation  exists 
by  ad  valorem  rates.  No  undervaluation  happens  in  the  port  of  Balti- 
more, Vhere  the  steamers  only  bring  small  cargoes  against  New  York, 
because  the  appraisers  of  the  port  are  very  careful,  but  in  New  York 
undervaluation  happens  every  day.  How  is  it  that  New  York  mer- 
chants come  to  this  city,  sell  their  goods  cheaper  than  we  can,  where 
we  are  getting  the  goods  from  the  same  manufacturer  and  pay  the  same 
price,  and  we  cannot  compete  I Because  the  undervaluation  and  the  dam- 
age allowances  can  be  better  performed  in  New  York  than  in  any  other 
port  of  this  country.  Our  business  has  suffered  very  much  through 
undervaluation  and  damage  allowances,  as  we  cannot  get  any  allowances 
in  Baltimore,  while  in  New  York  City  every  importer  is  receiving  often 
a nice  percentage  back,  and  we  are  very  much  in  favor  to  remove  dam- 
age allowance,  as  it  does  only  hurt  the  trade.  Further,  we  are  in 
favor  of  specific  duty  iu  order  to  make  an  end  to  undervaluation,  by 
which  only  the  dishonest  importers  succeed  and  the  honest  importers 
suffer.  The  complaint  that  the  appraisers  are  to  blame  that  goods  come 
in  undervalued,  is  not  at  all  a just  one,  because  the  dishonest  importers 
do  it  and  not  the  appraisers.  These  New  York  houses  have  all  made 
great  fortunes  by  undervaluation  and  damage  allowances,  while  we 
honest  importers  of  Baltimore  have  hard  work  to  compete  against  them 
and  make  an  honest  living,  keeping  always  in  front  of  us  u honesty  is 
the  best  policy.” 

We  are  importing  several  lines  of  merchandise,  sometimes  new  styles 
of  manufactured  goods,  and  as  soon  as  New  York  is  getting  hold  of  the 
article,  it  is  selling  its  goods  cheaper  than  we  can,  and  are  always  very 
much  surprised  at  their  low  prices ; we  only  think  undervaluation  is  the 
cause  of  it,  and  we  are  very  much  in  favor  of  specific  duty,  and  also  to 
remove  damage  allowances.  * * * 

We  remain,  dear  sir,  very  truly  yours, 

E.  & S.  NOKDLINGEK. 


[Joseph  Treloar,  charitable  donations  of  wearing  apparel.] 

Custom-House,  New  York  City, 

Collector's  Office , November  19,  1885. 

My  Dear  Sir:  Pardon  me  for  bringing  to  your  attention  a feature 
which  strikes  me  as  harsh  in  the  operation  of  the  tariff. 

The  present  u free  list  ” exempts  from  duty  the  u wearing  apparel  in 
actual  use  * * * of  persons  arriving  in  the  United  States  ”$  and 

under  the  Department’s  rulings  the  exemption  applies  when  the  apparel 
precedes  or  follows  the  arrival  of  the  owner  within  a reasonable  time. 

Cases  of  great  hardship  are  constaytly  x>resented  to  this  office.  For  in- 
stance, where  families  from  abroad  have  gone  iuto  our  “ great  West,”  the 
husband  and  father  has  died,  leaving  a widow  and  small  children  $ 
friends  abroad  send  them  old  clothing,  and  the  law,  as  it  is,  imposes 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  443 

duties  thereon  at  the  same  rates  per  pound,  if  wool,  as  is  chargeable  on 
new  clothing! 

I have  faith  that  there  is  not  a law-maker  in  Congress  who  will  not 
favor  the  exemption  from  duty  of  such  charitable  donations  under 
proper  restrictions. 

I append  hereto  a copy  of  a provision  in  this  relation  contained  in 
Mr.  Hewitt’s  bill,  which  was  presented,  but  not  passed,  last  session: 

Provided,  That  charitable  donations  of  wearing  apparel  shall  be  exempt  from  duty- 
on  production  of  evidence  satisfactory  to  the  collector  and  to  the  naval  officer  (if 
any)  that  the  same  are  in  good  faith  imported  for  the  relief  or  aid  of  indigent  or  needy 
persons  who  are  residents  of  the  United  States,  and  not  for  sale;  but  this  exemption 
shall  apply  only  when  such  donated  wearing  apparel  is  old  and  worn,  and  the  value 
thereof  in  any  one  importation  does  not,  in  the  judgment  of  the  United  States  ap- 
praiser, exceed  $100. 

I am,  with  high  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOSEPH  TBELOAR, 
Chief  Cleric  of  the  Customs . 

Hon.  D.  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


[Wm.  D.  Marvel,  tariff  legislation.'] 

Ho.  70  William  Street, 

New  York , August  5, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury  Department , Washington , D.  C.: 

Dear  Sir:  In  replying  to  your  circular  letter  of  the  22d  July,  1885, 
addressed  to  me,  asking  my  attention  to  the  following-named  points, 
viz : (1)  the  feasibility  of  simplifying  the  tariff;  (2)  making  duties  spec- 
ific, &c.;  (3)  suggestions  towards  the  removal  of  incongruities;  (4) 
schedule-rates  of  specific  duty,  &c.,  and  (5)  information  as  to  what  ex- 
tent, and  with  respect  to  what  classes  of  merchandise  I have  suffered 
injury  on  account  of  evasions  of  the  tariff  [lawj,  and  how,  in  my  judg- 
ment, such  evasions  may  be  prevented,  I will  take  up  each  item  under 
its  head  in  order  * # * : 

SIMPLIFYING  THE  TARIFF. 

By  reference  to  the  Constitution,  Article  I,  section  2,  paragraph  3,  it 
may  be  seen  that  “ Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  several  States,  which  may  be  included  within  this 
ITniou,”  &c. 

This  is  mandatory,  absolutely — there  is  no  option  or  “if”  about  it— 
and  I contend  that  Congress  has  no  power  under  Article  I,  section  8, 
paragraph  1,  unless  the  mandatory  provision  in  the  Constitution  before 
quoted  shall  have  first  been  complied  with  as  to  direct  taxes. 

“ Direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned,”  and,  in  the  powers  given  to 
Congress,  power  is  given  “ to  lay  and  collect  taxes,”  and  it  is  implied 
in  the  further  powers  given  to  Congress  that,  if  direct  taxes  shall  be 
insufficient  by  reason  of  any  exigency,  war,  famine,  or  similar  calamity, 
then  Congress  shall  have  the  power  to  lay  and  collect  “ duties,  im- 
posts, and  excises,”  and  such  power  is  merely  granted  to  provide  for  an 
emergency  beyond  the  ordinary  affairs  of  the  Government. 

This,  then,  is  my  first  suggestion  toward  the  matter  of  simplification. 


444  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


And  I apprehend  that  those  old  patriots  who  sought  to  found  the  best 
government  the  world  ever  saw,  sought  to  lay  the  foundation  upon 
the  principles  of  checks  and  safeguards.  They  had  studied,  observed, 
and  suffered  under  the  wrongs  from  arbitrary  laws  of  other  nations. 

They  sought  to  put  a check  upon  improper  representation,  and  at  the 
same  time  a check  upon  the  profligacy  of  Eepresentatives  in  expenditure 
of  public  money,  which  must  be  taken  from  the  people  by  taxation. 

The  very  point  upon  which  the  colonies  arose  in  arms  was  upon  the 
matter  of  “ taxation  without  representation.” 

The  Constitution  was  intended  to  make  representation  and  taxation 
co-equal  and  upon  the  basis  of  the  census  actually  to  be  taken  from 
time  to  time  every  ten  years,  after  three  years. 

We  have  the  representatives,  but  we  have  not  the  direct  taxes,  but 
we  are  taking  from  the  people  by  the  most  unjust  indirection,  annually, 
in  round  figures,  $400,000,000 ; or,  say,  on  the  basis  of  the  last  census, 
$8  per  capita  of  the  whole  population  of  the  country,  or  nearly  $24  per 
capita  of  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  country  who  earns  wages 
in  any  capacity  whatever  in  the  production  or  distribution  of  values. 

This  refers  alone  to  the  National  Government,  but  we  must  consider 
that  the  burdens  of  taxation  upon  labor  are  further  increased  by  an  al- 
most equal  amount  for  the  support  of  State  and  local  governments,  be- 
sides enormous  funded  debts  to  be  liquidated  from  the  fruits  of  labor. 

But  to  return  to  the  direct  point  under  discussion.  * 

Suppose,  for  instance,  any  of  the  great  schemes  and  rings  which  have 
disgraced  our  public  records  for  the  past  twenty-four  years,  in  which 
our  public  lands  have  been  squandered,  our  public  money  voted  away 
upon  subsidies,  navy  jobs,  back  pay  grabs,  river  and  harbor  steal  bills, 
&c. 

Were  the  money  thus  squandered  by  the  Representatives  (which  we 
have)  paid  into  the  Treasury  by  direct  taxes  (which  we  have  not)  where 
would  you  find  the  Representative  that  would  dare  to  vote  for  such 
measures  in  the  affirmative  ? Aye,  would  any  Representative  ever  have 
the  opportunity  to  vote  at  all  upon  such  measures ; for,  I do  not  be- 
lieve any  Representative  would  ever  dare  to  introduce  such  measures  in 
Congress  at  all;  if  he  did,  and  returned  to  face  his  constituents,  every 
one  of  them  having  to  pay  an  extra  percentage  of  taxes,  he  would  be 
apt  to  find  demonstrations  the  reverse  of  courtesy  and  compliments  con- 
signing him  to  dishonorable  privacy. 

The  true  principles  of  democracy  have  been  subverted,  and  in  the 
records  of  our  Government  for  the  past  twenty-four  years  we  find  one 
continuous  procession  of  oligarchical  government  robbing  the  people 
of  every  right  except  to  pay  taxes. 

The  oligarchy  have  appropriated  the  public  domain  to  private  uses 
and  squandered  the  public  moneys,  taken  from  the  people  by  every  dia- 
bolical method  of  indirection  in  numberless  schemes  of  plunder  from  the 
Treasury  for  their  private  gains.  They  have  polluted  the  temples  of  jus- 
tice and  openly  boasted  that  the  blind  goddess  is  a purchasable  strumpet 
to  satisfy  their  lusts  and  passions  for  iniquity.  Had  the  mandate  of 
the  Constitution  been  heeded  as  regards  direct  taxes  such  things  would 
have  been  impossible,  because  no  man  would  have  dared  to  have  taken 
the  first  step  which  has  led  to  such  things. 

Those  old  patriots  built  their  Constitution  in  wisdom,  actuated  by 
motives  born  in  hearts  honest  and  true,  breathing  in  every  word  and  in 
every  act  the  spirit  of  justice  and  liberty,  and  declared  that  the  price 
of  such  was  eternal  vigilance. 

We  have  permitted  one  lapse  and  another,  one  encroachment  and 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


445 


another,  one  outrage  and  another  to  follow  from  time  to  time  until  we 
have  but  in  name  what  was  founded  in  fact,  the  land  of  liberty. 

I suggest  that  we  should,  at  least,  provide  for  all  those  expenditures 
of  Government  which  may  be  necessary  to  maintain,  in  the  dignity  of 
democratic  government,  the  civil,  judiciary,  diplomatic,  interior-civil, 
military,  and  naval  affairs  of  the  nation  from  direct  taxes,  and  the  same 
to  be  levied  and  collected  and  paid  in  accord  with  the  requirements 
of  the  Constitution. 

That  being  done  then  the  way  is  open  for  the,  therefrom  easy,  matter 
of  simplifying  the  tariff*  laws  and  making  such  practically  specific  upon 
a basis  of  low  ad  valorem  equivalents. 

MAKING-  DUTIES  SPECIFIC. 

It  is  not  without  the  bounds  of  possibility  to  make  all  duties  specific, 
though  they  may  be  assessed  ad  valorem.  The  plan,  however,  is  open 
to  one  grave  criticism,  and  is  not  consistent  with  the  institution  of  a free 
country.  I refer  to  the  method  of  assessing  ad  valorem  duties,  making 
them  specific  by  proclamation  of  values  upon  which  the  ad  valorem 
duties  must  be  paid  from  time  to  time.  There  are  many  considerations 
both  for  and  against  this  method ; and  unless  the  line  of  dutiable  ar- 
ticles of  merchandise  is  to  be  very  much  curtailed  in  the  number  duti- 
able, the  detail  to  specify  the  grades  and  brands  in  proclamations  would 
be  out  of  all  possibility.  In  principle  it  is  in  many  respects  desirable, 
but  in  practice,  under  a general  tariff  law,  taxing  everything  as  we  do, 
it  will  be  found  almost  impossible  to  adopt  it.  Then  again  is  the  con- 
sideration of  opportunity,  by  official  corruption  and  early  knowledge  of 
proclamations  for  the  advancement  or  reduction  of  values,  for  rings  to 
be  formed  to  operate  to  the  detriment  of  the  people  as  a class,  whether 
importers,  wholesale  merchants,  jobbers,  dealers,  or  private  consumers. 

This  system,  though  apparently  fair  on  the  surface,  might  be  so  used 
as  to  subvert  the  principles  upon  which  taxes  are  levied — for  support 
of  the  Government — and  result  in  a wholesale  system  of  robbery  of  the 
people  under  the  guise  of  law. 

It  would  open  the  opportunity  and  be  the  inducement  for  combina- 
tions of  officials,  with  men  of  large  capital,  to  organize  great  trading 
companies,  who  would  always  import  under  proclamations  of  low  values 
and  prepare  for  carrying  stocks  of  goods  to  supply  wants  through  a 
period  of  high  values.  It  may  be  argued  that  everybody  will  have  the 
same  chance  under  values  high  or  low,  but  it  cannot  be  said  that  every- 
body will  have  the  same  information  as  to  when  a new  proclamation  of 
values  is  to  be  made;  and  whatever  may  be  the  safeguards  of  legisla- 
tion around  any  system  of  tariff  upon  imports  which  levies  a high  rate 
of  duty,  they  will  be  fruitless  to  prevent  frauds,  which  the  very  system 
itself  is  the  breeder  of  and  for  which  itself  offers  the  inducement  in  the 
form  of  a premium  for  perjury,  fraud,  and  official  corruption,  in  protect- 
ing and  participating  in  the  fruits  of  frauds,  whether  the  duty  be  high 
ad  valorem  or  high  specific.  * * * 

A plan  has  been  proposed  for  the  partial  forfeiture  of  goods  to  the 
Government  under  the  ad  valorem  system,  whereby  if  values  are  ad- 
vanced by  the  appraiser  10  per  cent,  the  importer  may  be  paid  the 
amount  of  his  invoice  plus  the  advance  added  Upvalue. 

This  plan  is  open  to  many  very  serious  objections.  It  is  not  only  a 
very  complicated  plan,  opening  the  way  for  frauds  in  the  payment  of 
deposits  for  duty,  and  the  refunds  of  money  on  liquidations,  and  the 
payment  of  freight  and  charges  on  goods,  but  it  is  a premium  for  col- 


446  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


lusions  between  officials  and  importers  to  sell  to  the  Government  all 
sorts  of  worthless  and  damaged  goods,  and  also  makes  it  possible  for 
collusion  to  get  valuable  goods  through,  arranged  to  deceive  by  bad 
samples,  when  offered  by  the  Government  for  sale  duty  free. 

I believe  that  in  the  great  lines  of  manufactured  goods  which  the 
wisdom  of  Congress  shall  deem  to  be  properly  dutiable,  the  only  way 
to  insure  uniformity  in  the  collection  of  the  duly  laid  is  to  lay  such 
duties  under  very  careful  classification  to  begin  with,  make  the  rate  of 
duty  low,  not  to  exceed  25  per  cent,  under  any  circumstances. 

Then  establish  a daily  report  of  values  between  appraisers  at  the 
different  ports  of  entry  upon  the  merchandise  passed’ upon,  and  compel 
samples  of  all  goods  (subject  to  ad  valorem  duty)  to  be  kept  in,  say, 
triplicate,  samples  to  be  returned  to  the  importer  in  some  proper  time 
at  Government  expense. 

Make  it  the  duty  of  the  appraisers,  or  theijr  assistants,  in  their  depart- 
ments wheee  assistant  appraisers  are  employed,  to  compare  the  daily 
reports  of  values  at  other  ports,  and  to  at  once  report  to  the  collector 
of  the  port  any  discrepancy  wThich  may  occur  in  values  of  goods  imported 
at  any  port,  as  compared  with  values  at  that  port. 

Make  it  the  duty  of  the  collector  at  each  port,  personally  or  by  a 
deputy,  to  constitute  a board  of  investigation  to  ascertain  proper  values, 
and  upon  such  ascertained  proper  values  all  entries  of  the  same  goods 
shall  be  liquidated  at  all  the  different  ports.  The  collectors  (or  one  of 
each  of  their  deputies)  of  any  three  or  more  ports  might  be  made  a 
board  of  investigation,  but  all  collectors  should  be  notified  of  such  in- 
vestigation, and  the  subject. 

Any  collector  finding  a discrepancy  in  values  at  his  own  port  com- 
pared with  values  at  any  other  port  or  ports  should  be  compelled  to 
notify  at  once  the  collector  or  collectors  of  such  other  port  or  x>orts, 
and  arrange  immediately  for  an  investigation  within  ten  days.  Entries 
of  goods  subject  to  ad  valorem  duties  should  be  open  and  unliquidated 
for  four  weeks  at  least.  A central  board  should  be  established  under 
the  control  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  whom  should  be  sent 
one  of  the  samples  before  suggested,  and  it  should  be  the  duty  of  that 
board  to  examine  the  samples  and  compare  the  same  and  their  entered 
values  (which  should  also  be  transmitted  therewith),  and  if  any  dis- 
crepancy be  found  to  notify  the  collectors  of  such  ports  as  the  dis- 
crepancies may  occur  between  that-  they  shall  immediately,  if  they 
have  not  already  done  so,  proceed  to  investigate  and  harmonize  dif- 
ferences upon  a basis  of  true  and  correct  values. 

I am  aware  of  the  detail  and  clerical  labor  involved  in  this  system, 
but  I am  also  aware  that  the  constitution  is  mandatory  (after  granting- 
power  to  the  Congress  to  levy  duties,  imposts,  and  excises)  after  a 
“ but,”  viz : u But  all  duties,  imposts,  and  excises  shall  be  uniform 
throughout  the  United  States,”  and  if  there  is  any  other  way  of  meeting 
that  requirement  than  by  some  system  of  communication  and  inform- 
ation between  the  collectors  and  other  officials  charged  with  the  re- 
sponsibility of  collecting,  I am  unable  to  suggest  it. 

I would  do  away  with  all  consular  invoices,  so-called,  as  they  are 
of  no  value  to  the  importer,  are  not  recognized  by  the  Government  as 
of  any  value  to  it. 

Under  the  present  law  it  is  possible,  and  has  actually  occurred,  that 
consular  invoices  for  the  same  goods  shipped  to  different  parties  may 
b.e  certified  to  and  sworn  to  under  the  prescribed  form,  one  declaring  a 
value  of,  say,  $1  the  unit,  and  another  $2.50  the  unit,  and  still  another 
$2  the  unit,  on  the  same  day. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  447 

This  might  occur  in  fluctuating  markets  by  purchases  being  made  in 
a few  days. 

In  1880  I paid  duty  on  24s.,  f.  o.  b.,  value  for  iron  ore,  and  I think  in 
some  cases  as  high  as  28s.,  but  my  invoice  was  for  only  10s.  to  12s.,  f.  o. 
b.,  in  England. 

Afterwards  I might  pay  duty  on  16s.  or  18s.  value  when  prices  had 
declined  to  12s.  to  13s.  again. 

That  law  is  a very  unjust  one,  and,  in  my  opinion  unconstitutional ; 
certainly  at  variance  with  the  provision  that  “duties  shall  be  uniform,” 
&c. 

A neighbor  of  mine  may  buy  silks,  for  instance,  at  $1.50  per  yard;  he 
is  compelled  to  have  his  consular  invoice  at  $1.50,  and  the  law  compels 
him  to  pay  duty  on  $1.50. 

I wait  a week  or  two,  and  I buy  a line  of  the  same  goods  at  $1  per 
yard.  His  invoice  comes  along  at  $1.50,  mine  at  $1 ; our  goods  are  in 
the  same  steamer,  perhaps,  and  we  enter  them  for  duty  the  same  day ; 
he  has  to  swear  his  goods  in  (according  to  “ law  ”)  at  $1.50,  and  has  to 
pay,  according  to  law  (60  per  cent.),  90  cents  duty ; total,  $2.40. 

I have  to  swear  my  goods  in  (according  to  law)  at  $1,  and  have  to  pay, 
according  to  “law”  "(60  per  cent.),  60  cents  duty;  total,  $1.60.  I thus 
get  the  advantage  of  my  neighbor  50  cents  per  yard  by  “ purchase,”  and 
30  cents  per  yard  by  “law.” 

And  here  one  of  the  inconsistencies  and  incongruities  of  the  law  may 
be  mentioned.  One  way,  the  law  says  that  the  value  must  be  that  of 
the  market  price  on  the  day  of  shipment. 

The  consular  invoice  says  that  that  is  the  only  invoice,  and  that  the 
value  is  the  true  market  value,  which,  as  mentioned  above,  may  be  $1.50, 
because  that  party  did  buy  at  $1.50,  and,  as  exampled  above,  my  in- 
voice, sworn  to  with  all  the  solemnity  as  the  other,  certifies  quite  as  sol- 
emnly to  $1. 

The  whole  system  at  present  is  one  mass  of  inconsistencies  and  incon- 
gruities, making  nothing  of  the  solemnity  of  an  oath  encouraging  eva- 
sions and  frauds,  and  altogether  a premium  upon  rascality  and  for  col- 
lusions between  dishonest  importers  and  dishonest  officials. 

SUGGESTIONS  TOWARDS  THE  REMOVAL  OF  INCONGRUITIES. 

I have  already  suggested  the  abolishment  of  consular  invoices  and 
have  mentioned  the  only  means  that  I know  of  for  correcting  the  matter 
of  incongruous  values. 

I may  now  mention  the  matter  of  classification  and  nomenclature. 

Articles  should  be  classified  in  accordance  with  the  customs  of  trade 
and  commerce,  and  under  such  classifications  the  nomenclature  used 
should  be  such  as  applies  to  articles  of  commerce,  and  the  appellation 
given  should  be  such  as  is  applied  in  the  affairs  of  human  life. 

The  tariff  law  should  specify  by  distinct  classification  in  the  different 
general  lines  of  imports  the  goods,  for  instance,  “ manufactures  of  silk,” 
which  may  come  under  any  one  classification. 

The  nomenclature  used  to  define  dutiable  articles  should  always  be  in 
accordance  with  commercial  usage  and  known  denominations  of  trade. 

Beyond  these  specific  classifications  and  specific  nomenclations  make 
all  things  free  of  duty,  and  leave  no  such  opportunity  open  for  “ Treasury 
Department  decisions”  as  is  displayed  in  the  numerous  volumes  of 
decisions  accumulated  under  the  present  system  during  the  last  twenty 
years  particularly. 

You  may  there  find  all  sorts  of  decisions,  some  of  them  so  very  silly 


448  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


that  one  might  wonder  if  the  customs  department  of  the  Treasury  were 
not  an  asylum  for  incurable  idiots,  or  a resort  for  rogues  to  practice  all 
manner  of  schemes  of  rascality  for  defrauding  the  revenue  and  injuring 
honest  merchants. 

In  the  great  run  of  the  so-called  Treasury  decisions  it  will  appear, 
under  a critical  examination,  that  commercial  usage,  law,  Supreme  Court 
decisions,  and  common  sense,  upon  which  all  law  is  supposed  to  be 
founded,  have  all  been  unheeded  or  set  at  defiance. 

Scientific  nomenclature  must  be  ignored  entirely,  as  may  be  seen  by 
reference  to  8 Peters,  page  279,  where  the  Hon.  Judge  Thompson  says: 
“ The  denomination  of  merchandise  subject  to  the  payment  of  duties  is 
to  be  understood  in  a commercial  sense,  although  it  may  not  be  scien- 
tifically correct. 

Howt  just  this  is  on  the  face  of  it  may  be  apparent  from  the  fact  that 
in  the  growth  of  science  new  classifications  are  constantly  being  made, 
new  substances  are  being  discovered,  and  other  substances  finding  new 
uses.  In  chemistry  the  foundation  of  the  present  classification  and 
nomenclature  of  substances  is  that  of  the  French  Academy  of  Sciences  in 
the  eighteenth  century.  True  it  is  an  advance  upon  the  old  animal, 
vegetable,  and  mineral  basis,  but  it  is  very  far  short  of  a rational  sys- 
tem meeting  the  present  state  of  science. 

At  times  it  has  been  proposed  to  call  a general  congress  of  scientists 
from  all  nations  to  meet  and  there  reform  the  whole  system  to  conform 
to  the  modern  classification  and  nomenclature  of  substances. 

The  Hon.  Judge  Story,  9 Wheaton,  page  438,  &c.,  says : 

The  object  of  the  duty  laws  is  to  raise  revenue,  and  for  this  purpose  to  class  sub- 
stances according  to  the  general  usage  and  known  denominations  of  trade.  Whether 
a particular  article  were  designated  by  one  name  or  another  in  the  country  of  its 
origin,  or  whether  it  were  a simple  or  mixed  substance,  was  of  no  importance  in  the 
view  of  the  legislation.  It  did  not  suppose  our  merchants  to  be  naturalists  or  geolo- 
gists, or  botanists.  It  applied  its  attention  to  the  description  of  articles  as  they  de- 
rived their  appellations  in  our  own  markets,  in  our  domestic  as  well  as  our  foreign 
traffic.  And  it  would  have  been  as  dangerons  as  useless  to  attempt  any  other  classi- 
fication than  that  derived  from  the  actual  business  of  human  life.  * * * The  true 

inquiry,  therefore  is,  whether  in  a commercial  sense  the  [article]  in  question  is  known, 
and  bought,  and  sold,  and  used  under  the  denomination  of — 

Say  tea,  sugar,  silk,  iron,  steel,  hemp,  jute,  minerals,  ores, chemicals, 
or  anything  else. 

The  Hon.  Judge  Ingersoll,  3 Blatehford,  page  393,  says  : 

In  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  terms  used  in  the  tariff  acts  as  suck  relate  to  com- 
merce, recourse  is  had  to  their  meaning  according  to  the  commercial  understanding  of 
the  terms  in  our  markets  at  the  time  the  acts  were  passed  ; and  where  it  does  not  ap- 
pear from  the  act  itself  that  some  other  certain  fixed  meaning  is  intended  by  the  terms 
used,  then  they  are  to  be  understood  according  to  the  commercial  meaning  of  the  terms 
in  our  markets  at  the  time  the  act  was  passed. 

These  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  many 
more  which  I might  cite,  have  been  utterly  ignored  in  Treasury  De- 
partment decisions. 

In  this  point  of  specific  classifications  and  specific  (commercial)  no- 
menclature in  the  tariff  law  I come  to  consider  another  point  which  is 
unconstitutional  and,  in  my  opinion,  without  warrant. 

Congress  makes  the  law,  and  then  the  commercial  public  is  left  to  the 
mercy  of  senseless,  incompetent,  to  say  the  least,  Department  employes 
to  construe  the  law.  They  override  the  plainest  and  most  apparent  in- 
tent of  Congress  in  the  law,  and  subject  the  citizen  (merchant),  to  an 
endless  annoyance  and  expense  to  maintain  his  rights  through  the 
courts. 

The  system  opens  the  way  for  all  manner  of  frauds,  through  official 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


449 


favoritism,  by  corrupt  collusions  between  dishonest  importers  and  dis- 
honest officials,  and  it  has  been  openly  charged  that  heads  of  Bureaus 
have  had  their  brokers  outside  dealing  in  Departmental  decisions  and 
information. 

The  opportunity  for  such  tilings  arises  solely  and  purely  out  of  the 
inconsistencies  and  incongruities  in  the  classification  and  nomenclature 
used  in  the  tariff  acts,  and  the  power  given  to,  or  assumed  by,  Treasury 
Department  officials  to  construe  the  meaning  of  terms  used  in  the  acts. 

And  this  in  late  years  has  led  to  one  of  the  many  tendencies  towards 
centralization  of  all  powers  in  detail  in  Washington.  Collectors  of  ports 
for  many  years  have  been  powerless  to  perform  their  duties,  as  the  laws 
intended  collectors  to  do.  And  it  is  a matter  for  congratulation  that 
under  the  present  administration  one  of  its  first  acts  was  to  give  Judge 
Robertson  to  understand  that  he  was  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New 
York. 

Heretofore  under  the  law  the  collector  of  a port  was  the  one  responsi- 
ble head  for  the  collection  of  the  revenue  at  his  port,  but  under  the 
assumption  of  power  in  Washington,  claiming  the  jurisdiction  over  the 
smallest  detail,  the  collector  was  only  nominally  the  collector.  He  was 
powerless  to  act  untrammeled  for  the  proper  collection  of  the  revenue, 
or  for  the  proper  protection  against  frauds,  or  lor  the  proper  prosecu- 
tion of  frauds. 

Special  agents  have  been  established  almost  supreme  over  the  col- 
lector, hindering  and  preventing,  actually,  the  collector  from  the  per- 
formance of  his  duties.  * * * 

I apprehend  that  the  original  intent  was  that  the  special  agents 
should  be  useful  aids  to  the  Secretary^  of  the  Treasury  in  his  necessary 
business  relations  with  the  collectors  of  ports,  and  that  they  were  to  per- 
form special  duties  which  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  could  safely  dele- 
gate to  such  agents,  and  which  it  would  be  physically  impossible  to  do 
personally  himself. 

This  original  intent  has  been,  by  one  encroachment  and  another,  en- 
tirely subverted.  * * * 

This  system  of  investigation  and  report  and  pigeon-holing  indisput- 
able evidences  of  frauds  has  been  practiced,  I believe,  to  the  end  of,  and 
for  the  sole  purpose  of,  nursing  such  things  in  oblivion  until  outlawed 
under  that  iniquitous  three-year  limitation  law,  when  the  dishonest  im- 
porter and  the  dishonest  official  confreres  may  snap  their  fingers  in  the 
faces  of  honest  men  and  dance  around  the  temples  of  justice  jingling 
their  ill  gotten  gains  in  well  filled  pockets.  Repeal  that  law  at  once; 
make  a fraud  never  outlawed. 

SCHEDULE,  ETC. 

Under  this  head  I will  try  to  be  very  brief. 

Raw  materials  (free  of  duty). — I use  the  term  raw  material  in  its  strict 
commercial  significance,  which  applies  to  any  substance  which  is  the 
fundamental  raw  material  upon  which  labor  is  employed  in  any  line  of 
manufacture,  viz: 

Iron  ore  in  iron  manufacture,  copper  ore  in  copper  manufacture,  raw 
wool  in  woolen  manufacture,  raw  silk  in  silk  manufacture,  raw  hides  in 
leather  manufacture,  raw  hemp  in  hemp  and  linen  manufacture,  raw 
jute  in  all  that  line  of  manufacture,  and  all  other  (fundamental)  raw  ma- 
terials. 

I submit,  as  an  indisputable  fact,  that  any  tax  upon  the  raw*  materials 
is  a direct  tax  upon  labor,  and  just  to  the  amount  of  such  tax  precludes 
S.  Ex.  72 29 


450  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


the  possibility  of  wages  to  labor.  Such  tax  is  contrary  to  public  policy, 
a hindrance  to  the  conservation  of  the  public  interests,  and  a disturber 
of  the  general  welfare. 

In  view  of  the  existing  evils,  the  result  of  twenty-four  years  of  mis- 
rule, and  the  enormous  misdirection  of  capital  under  the  system  so  long 
fostered,  I would  enact : All  lines  of  manufactured  goods  to  be  dutiable 
at  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  basis,  and  make  no  discrimination  in  favor  of 
or  for  the  protection  of  any.  With  the  raw  material  free  of  duty  and 
25  per  cent,  on  manufactures,  the  manufacturing  industries  will  have 
all  the  “ protection  ” that  the  people  can  alford  to  pay  for,  and  I believe 
that  in  time,  under  such  a policy,  we  may  regain  a position  among  the 
commercial  nations  of  the  world  which  we  can  never  do  if  we  pursue 
the  present  policy 

The  present  policy  had  its  birth,  at  least  the  first  germ  originated,  in 
the  necessities  for  taxation  of  imports  to  defray  the  expenses  and  costs 
of  the  wars  waged  by  the  colonies  in  their  struggles  for  freedom. 

Prejudice  and  animosity  toward  the  mother  country  was  largely  in- 
fiuential  in  making  it  possible  to  inaugurate  what  became  to  be  known 
as  the  “ American  system,”  and  by  what  insidious  means,  by  what 
paleous  arguments,  by  what  sophistical  pleas  the  idea  of  “ protection 99 
was  instilled  into  the  minds  of  the  people  may  be  seen  by  any  one 
who  will  study  the  legislation  of  those  days.  Alexander  Hamilton,  the 
so-called  founder  of  the  “ American  system,”  would  be  denounced  as  a 
“ free  trader 99  in  these  days. 

As  the  result  of  all  his  great  influence,  his  great  report  upon  manu- 
factures, the  “ protection,”  in  form  of  a protective  tariff,  was  7£  per 
centum  ad  valorem  on  all  manufactures  of  cotton  and  wool ; but  even 
Hamilton  never  committed  the  folly  of  enacting  a duty  on  raw  mate- 
rials. 

He  says : 

Indeed  all  tlie  duties  imposed  on  imported  articles,  though  with  an  exclusive  view 
to  revenue,  have  the  effect  in  contemplation  (i.  e.,  “ protection  ”),  and  except  where 
they  (duties)  fall  on  raw  materials,  wear  a beneficent  aspect  toward  the  manufact- 
tures  of  the  country. 

Hamilton  recommended,  however,  for  some  reason  or  another,  a duty 
on  hemp,  apparently  to  encourage  the  cultivation  of  hemp  iu  the  United 
States ; but  as  an  example  of  his  inconsistency,  and,  as  I think,  proof 
that  his  recommendation  for  duty  on  hemp  was  prompted  by  other 
motives,  perhaps  personal  interest,  he  had  an  entirely  different  view  as 
to  cotton,  for  he  says  : 

The  present  duty  of  3 cents  per  pound  on  the  foreign  raw  material  is  undoubtedly 
a very  serious  impediment  to  the  progress  of  those  manufactories.  * * * A repeal 

of  the  present  duty  on  cotton  is  indispensable. 

And  in  relation  to  iron  he  even  questioned  “ if  it  were  not  expedient 
to  import  pig  iron  and  bar-iron  free  of  duty.” 

This  “American  system”  for  the  protection  of  “infant  industries” 
grew  (take,  for  instance,  cotton  sheetings)  from  Hamilton’s  ideas  of 
protection,  from  7£  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  in  1790, 12£  per  cent.  1794, 
15  per  cent.  1804,  27 £ per  cent.  1812,  114  per  cent.  1810,  125  per  cent. 
1824,  145  per  cent.  1828. 

Here  the  “America  system 99  culminated  in  almost  the  disruption  of 
the  Union,  and  a compromise  was  made  in  Congress  leading  back  to  a 
comparatively  common-sense  system  of  tariff  duties,  and  .by  successive 
reductions  a rate  of  20  per  cent,  was  reached  in  1842. 

From  that  time  (1842)  down  to  the  war  of  the  rebellion  we  had  com- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  451 

paratively  low  duties,  and  the  prosperity  of  the  country  was  such  as  it 
never  saw  before. 

Our  goods  were  known  in  every  market  of  the  world,  our  ships  car- 
ried the  American  flag,  over  cargoes  of  American  goods,  to  every  port 
in  theworld. 

American  merchants  had  their  establishments  in  foreign  countries. 

In  the  last  eight  years  of  Democratic  administration,  1853-1860,  in- 
clusive, under  Fierce  and  Buchanan,  was  the  most  prosperous  period  of 
our  country’s  history. 

Under  the  Democratic  policy  of  low  taxes,  which  is  the  means  of  af- 
fording real  prosperity  and  especially  to  the  laboring  classes,  the  pro- 
ducers of  wealth,  we  find  that  the  wealth  of  the  country  increased  from 
$6,000,000,000  in  1852  to  over  $12,000,000,600  in  1860,  or  say  100  per 
cent,  in  eight  years.  Then  came  the  war,  which  I will  not  discuss  here  as 
to  its  origin,  though  I have  not  the  slightest  objection  to  doing  so. 

Had  we  gone  on  increasing  our  national  wealth  from  1860  to  1880  as  we 
did  from  1852  to  1860  we  should  have  found  our  wealth  in  1880  recorded 
at  $72,000,000,000,  but  we  only  find  (census  report  1880,  page  1508)  the 
total  real  and  personal  wealth  of  all  the  States  and  Territories  to  be 
$16,902,000,000. 

The  war  revived  the  so-called  “American  system,”  “protecting”  every- 
thing, aud  theoretically  it  will  appear  that  under  such  system  our  wealth 
was  actually  prevented  in  growth  to  the  extent  of  our  $55,000,000,000. 

Deduct  from  the  $16,902,000,000  the  depreciation  in  all  sorts  of  values 
since  1880  of  over  $4,000,000,000,  and  we  are  carried  back  to  practically 
the  figures  of  1860. 

Thus,  under  twenty-four  years  of  misrule,  we  are  apparently  worth  no 
more  now  than  we  were  in  1860. 

But  this  is  not  all;  in  1860  we  did  not  know  what  debts  and  taxes 
were,  comparatively  speaking,  whereas  now  not  only  do  we  find  our 
national  wealth  really  at  the  same  figures  that  were  shown  in  1860,  but 
we  find  enormous  debts  to  be  liquidated  out  or  the  fruits  of  the  soil  and 
labor,  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  over  $7,200,000,000,  and  we  find 
taxes  to  the  General  Government,  State  and  local  Governments,  and  to 
specially  privileged  classes  under  protective  tariffs  amounting  in  the 
total  to  $2,915,000,000  annually. 

We  are  thus  in  this  position  with  about  17,000,000  people  in  all  ca- 
pacities of  employment  in  the  production  and  distribution  ot  wealth, 
each  one  mortgaged  for  $414,  aud,  besides,  each  one  subject  to  an-an- 
nual  incubus  of  taxation  of  $163. 

Is  it  any  wonder,  to  those  who  will  carefully  investigate  our  condition, 
that  we  are  in  a very  bad  way  ? We  find  ourselves  now,  after  squand- 
ering the  fruit  of  the  soil  and  product  of  labor  for  twenty  four  years,  in 
a condition  of  commercial,  financial,  industrial,  and  moral  stagnation. 

To  those  who  study  such  things  it  is  well  known  that  the  moral  con- 
dition of  the  people  depends  largely  upon  a wise  and  pure  system  in  the 
administration  of  the  Government. 

We  find  out  of  all  this  that  the  physical  and  social  condition  of  the 
people  has  degenerated. 

From  1860  to  1880  our  population  increased  from  31,000,000  to  about 
50,000,060,  an  increase  of  say  61  per  cent.,  but  when  we  look  at  the  rec- 
ords of  insanity,  idiocy,  blindness,  and  dumbness,  we  find  those  ills  have 
increased  by  an  average  of  300  per  cent. 

Aud  further,  looking  into  the  matter  of  illiteracy,  notwithstanding  all 
the  partisan  pretenses  of  the  parrot  orators,  champions  of  the  party  of 


452  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


great  moral  conscrvers,  boasting  of  our  churches  and  school  Louses,  we 
find  that  illiteracy  has  increased  245  per  cent. 

What  must  we  do  ? 

We  have  already  changed  the  administration  and  the  administration 
is  to  be  sympathized  with  from  and  for  the  enormity  of  its  work  to  be 
performed,  to  be  obliged  to  administer  bad  laws,  the  accumulative  in- 
iquities of  twenty-four  years,  and  to  exert  its  influence  upon  legislation 
to  reform  the  whole  system. 

It  has  been  said  that  “The  object  of  Government  as  generally  prac- 
ticed is  to  wrest  from  producers  their  earnings,  in  order  that  others  may 
be  relieved  from  the  inconvenience  of  producing  for  themselves.”  That 
seems  to  be  quite  applicable  to  our  past  twenty-four  years  of  Govern- 
ment. 

. We  must  now  come  back  to  the  principles  upon  which  this  Govern- 
ment was  founded.  We  must  do  away  with  every  useless  tax,  and  every 
tax  is  indisputably  a burden  upon  the  laboring  classes.  We  must  place 
our  manufacturing  industries  in  the  position  to  secure  raw  materials 
upon  which  labor  is  employed  free  from  any  form  of  taxation.  We  must 
rise  to  the  advance  of  the  science  of  the  subdivision  of  labor,  and  de- 
mand of  our  statesmen  and  public  men  their  devotion  to  the  principles 
of  that  science  in  reforming  and  correcting  the  iniquities  of  the  past. 
We  must  do  away  with  all  special  class  legislation  and  all  sumptuary 
laws,  and  permit  our  natural  resources  to  develop  under  the  natural 
course  of  production  and  distribution  whereby  our  lost  vantage  may  be 
regained  and  our  national  wealth  augmented  in  a permutation,  propor- 
tionate to  our  numercial  increase  of  population. 

Then  again  shall  we  see  the  commerce  of  the  world  paying  tribute  to 
our  wealth,  demanding  the  products  of  our  skill  and  energy,  afford- 
ing employment  to  our  now  idle  hands. 

Then  again  may  our  commercial  and  naval  marine  command  the 
seas  and  the  admiration,  respect,  and  even  the  fear  of  other  nations  as 
it  did  a quarter  of  a century  ago,  when,  to  be  an  American,  under  the 
American  flag,  was  the  sure  passport  to  the  utmost  corners  of  the 
world,  where  none  dared  to  disturb  or  molest. 

The  range  of  the  inquiries  in  your  letter  of  the  22d  July,  1885,  is 
so  great  that  I can  but  briefly  touch  upon  them,  and  even  then  at  the 
risk  of  making  my  reply  so  long  as  to  be,  with  all  your  multitude  of 
duties,  beyond  your  personal  attention.  The  subjects  are  interesting 
to  me,  and  I would  be  pleased  if  any  word  of  mine  could  be  instru- 
mental in  leading  to  the  reforms  so  much  needed,  and  in  case  my  pres- 
ent communication  shall  be  found  to  need  any  explanation  or  in  case  I 
may  be  of  service  to  you  in  aiding  you  by  pointing  out  authorities  in 
the  prosecution  of  your  desired  aim,  I am  at  your  service  to  call  upon, 
and  I will  respond  within  my  poor  ability  to  do  so. 

Every  government  recorded  in  history  that  has  pursued  the  course 
which  we  have  been  pursuing  the  past  twenty-four  years  has  gone  down 
from  a position  among  commercial  nations.  One  by  one  have  they  risen 
to  the  zenith  of  their  fame  and  glory  until  an  oligarchical  power  has  as- 
sumed to  defy  the  will  and  deny  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  from  that 
point  decline  has  been  more  or  less  sure,  step  by  step,  until  they  have 
been  numbered  among  the  “ conquerors  that  were.” 

Information  as  to  what  extent  and  with  respect  to  what  classes  of  merchandise  I 
have  suffered  injury  on  account  of  evasions  of  the  tariff  (law),  and  how,  in  my  judg- 
ment, such  evasions  may  be  prevented. 

I have  suffered  great  injury  from  the  dishonest  importations  of  iron 
ore  during  the  years  of  1880,  1881,  1882.  * * * 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


453 


As  the  duty  on  iron  ore  is  now  specific,  at  75  cents  per  ton  under  the 
new  tariff  law  in  operation  since  July  1,  1883,  the  same  opportunities 
do  not  exist,  but  I have  sometimes  thought  that  there  may  be  some 
cheating  in  weights,  though  of  this  I have  no  real  proof.  * * * * 

The  remedies  that  I would  suggest  for  preventing  such  frauds  as  my 
experience  in  ores  makes  me  cognizant  of  are  only  to  be  made  follow- 
ing upon  a thorough  simplification  of  the  tariff  and  by  “ kicking  the 
rascals  out.” 

You  cannot  build  any  house  of  reform  so  long  as  you  keep  any  of  the 
old  timber  in,  and  the  sooner  the  rotten  timber  is  thrown  out  the  better. 
Then  you  must  have  a tariff*  law  framed  upon  the  basis  of  a low  rate  oi* 
duties,  removing,  as  far  as  possible,  all  duties  which  are  in  themselves 
a premium  upon  fraud  and  for  evasion  of  duties. 

One  of  the  very  worst  features  of  our  present  tariff  law  is  that  it  is  an 
advertisement  to  all  the  world  that  a big  premium  is  offered  for  foreign 
adventurers  to  come  here  and  evade  the  duties  and  make  a big  pile  of 
money,  and  you  will  find  that  most  of  the  importing  business  is  in  the 
hands  of  men  of  that  class,  not  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Look  at  the  silk  business  and  similar  trades — scarcely  an  American 
citizen.  They  think  it  is  fair  game,  we  offering  the  premium,  to  go  in 
for  it. 

And  meantime  honest  American  merchants  are  driven  out  of  the  busi- 
ness. 

####*## 

I must,  however,  impose  upon  your  attention  some  items  for  your  con- 
sideration which  are  contemporary  questions  to  be  considered  in  con- 
nection with  tariff  reform. 

A heavy  tax  on  merchants  who  are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  extraordinarily  stringent  rules  upon  all  entries  of  imports  made  by 
such  merchants. 

I am  fully  aware  of  the  arguments  pro  and  con  this  question. 

A heavy  tax  on  all  imported  persons  in  proportion  to  their  occupa- 
tion. 

The  law  at  present  really  provides  for  this  under  the  head  of  “Ani- 
mals, live.”  “The  term  ‘live  animals’ comprehends  all  living  bodies 
endowed  with  sensation  and  the  power  of  motion.”  (See  foot-note, 
Heyl’s  ed.  1879,  p.  112.) 

The  laborers  of  this  country  are  open  to  the  freest  sort  of  free  trade 
in  all  that  they  have  to  dispose  of — their  daily  labor,  their  bone,  sinew, 
life-blood.  The  present  system  is  leading  to  a system  ultimately  worse 
than  any  slavery  or  serfdom  recorded  in  the  annals  of  nations. 

The  law  is  enforced  to  “protect”  the  laboring  horse,  mule,  and  ox. 

The  law  excepts  “leeches”  from  tax  or  duty,  and  this  seems  to  have 
a double  significance  for  the  laboring  man,  who  is  left  to  the  mercy  of 
“leeches”  imported  and  “leeches”  indigenous  to  the  soil. 

The  manufacturer — the  employer  of  labor — the  purchaser  of  bone, 
sinew,  and  life-blood — has  his  interests  most  carefully  conserved  in  the 
spirit  of  the  famous  Garfield-Morey  letter. 

Thus  while  the  laborers  have  the  price  of  their  commodity  (labor) 
made  by  the  utmost  freedom  of  trade,  free  importation,  they  see  every 
article  of  consumption  protected  and  prices  therefor  made  accordingly. 

This  question  should  be  considered  to  the  point  of  a just  conclusion 
before  the  injustices  now  experienced,  and  wrhich  are  beginning  to  agi- 
tate the  minds  of  the  leaders  of  the  labor  organizations,  shall  have  led 
to  serious  consequences. 

By  the  census  of  1880  it  may  be  proven  that  in  the  “protected”  in- 


454  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


dustries,  for  every  $2.19  of  value  created  or  made  by  labor  upon  the  raw 
materials  upon  which  labor  was  employed,  that  labor  was  only  paid  $1. 

It  must  be  apparent  that  the  laborer  who  sells  his  daily  labor  for  $1, 
and  buys  back  (as  one  of  the  consumers)  the  fruits  of  his  own  labor  at 
$2.19,  is  destined  to  a very  hard  life. 

I am  not  unmindful  of  the  due  allowances  to  be  made,  in  an  exact 
computation,  for  capital,  interest,  wear  and  tear,  but  I merely  present 
the  exact  condition  as  it  is. 

The  result,  however,  is  only  in  conformity  with  our  whole  iniquitous 
system.  It  seeks  to  create  value  by  legislation,  forgetting  that  any- 
thing which  destroys  the  honest  parity  between  values  and  purchasing 
power  is  destructive  of  the  interests  of  the  wThole  people ; and  it  is  that, 
and  that  alone,  which  puts  us  so  intermittently  into  short  feasts  (booms) 
and  long  famines  (periods  of  j>rotracted  prostration),  and  it  is  by  this, 
and  this  alone,  that  our  national  resources  have  been  and  are  being 
squandered. 

We  tax  the  raw  materials  upon  which  labor  is  employed. 

Free  raw  material  is  the  very  foundation  upon  which  all  manufactur- 
ing nations  build  their  success. 

The  tax  upon  raw  material  is  very  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  woolen 
and  iron  industries. 

In  iron  we  find  that  in  1870  the  miners  employed  in  iron-ore  mines 
averaged  to  produce  2 26  tons  of  iron  ore,  and  their  wages  amounted  to 
$2.01  per  ton. 

In  1880  they  averaged  to  produce  223  tons,  and  their  wages  amounted 
to  $1.35  per  ton,  or  a reduction  of  33  per  cent. 

On  July  1,  1883,  the  new  duty  of  75  cents  per  ton  on  iron  ore  came 
into  effect,  and  to-day  men  are  begging  for  work  at  60  to  65  cents  per 
day  (within  100  miles  of  this  city)  and  no  work  in  mining  iron  ore  to  be 
had. 

In  Virginia  40  cents  per  day  is  the  rate,  and  in  Tennessee  convicts 
are  contracted  out  at  30  cents  per  day  in  iron  mines. 

All  these  “protective”  tariffs  are  pretended  to  be  “for  the  benefit  of 
the  poor  workingmen.”  Will  any  man  in  this  world  stand  up  and  show 
me  where  there  is  any  benefit  to  the  poor  workingmen?  In  the  mean 
time  pig-iron  and  spiegeleisen  are  being  imported  in  large  quantities, 
which,  if  the  raw  material  were  free  of  duty,  would  make  demand  and 
use  for  large  quantities  of  native  ores,  employing  labor  to  mine  it,  to 
mix  with  foreign  ores,  and  again  employ  labor  to  quarry  limestone, 
mine  coal,  and  make  the  pig-iron. 

The  matter  of  iron  ore  and  the  effect  of  a duty  upon  it  is  very  for- 
cibly expressed  in  the  following  letter  by  the  Hon.  A.  S.  Hewitt,  who  is, 
to  my  personal  knowledge,  the  owner  of  iron-ore  property  in  seven  or 
eight  different  States  in  this  Union: 

New  York,  December  30,  1881. 

Dear  Sir  : I have  received  copies  of  the  petition  which  the  citizens  of  Morris 
County  are  requested  to  sign  in  favor  of  an  increase  of  duty  on  iron  ore. 

The  petition  is  based  upon  a total  misconception  of  the  facts  of  the  case.  If  the 
miners  regard  their  own  interests  they  will  petition  for  an  entire  abolition  of  the  duty 
on  iron  ore,  because  every  ton  of  foreign  ore  that  is  brought  here  enables  a ton  of  our 
ore  to  be  used  which  would  otherwise  find  no  market.  The  reason  of  this  is  that  all 
the  ore  in  Morris  County  contains  a little  more  phosphorus  than  is  possible  to  be 
used  iu  the  manufacture  of  steel.  The  foreign  ores  imported  are  practically  free  from 
phosphorus.  By  mixing  the  two  in  equal  proportions  a pig-iron  can  bo  produced 
which  is  fit  for  the  Bessemer  converter. 

Hence  the  more  foreign  ores  we  can  get  the  more  Americau  ore  will  be  used,  and 
the  better  price  we  shall  be  able  to  get  for  it,  and  the  higher  wages  we  shall  be  able 
to  pay  to  the  miners. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  455 

I shall  therefore  do  all  in  my  power,  although  my  firm  is  the  largest  miner  of  iron 
ore  in  New  Jersey,  to  secure  the  total  abolition  of  the  duty  and  not  its  increase. 

You  are  at  liberty  to  communicate  my  views  to  your  neighbors  and  to  the  public  in 
any  way  that  you  see  fit. 

Truly  yours,  ABRAM  S.  HEWITT. 

In  pig-iron  manufacture  the  laborers  see  a protective  tariff  of  $6.72 
per  ton  for  their  “benefit.” 

It  was  argued  that  there  must  be  $6.72  protection  on  pig-iron  be- 
cause the  rate  of  wages  is  50  per  cent,  higher  here  than  in  Europe,  and 
that  $6.72  would  not  more  than  cover  the  difference.  Now,  let  us  see 
this  problem  under  the  test  of  mathematics. 

If  $6.72  is  50  per  cent.,  then  the  wages  paid  for  making  iron  in  Europe 
must  be  $15.44;  and  if  the  protection  of  $6.72  is  for  the  benefit  of 
American  workingmen,  then  the  wages  for  making  pig-iron  in  this 
country  must  be  $13.44  plus  $6.72,  or  $20.16. 

What  are  the  facts'?  I will  defy  any  pig-iron  maker  in  the  United 
States  to  show  that  for  making  pig-iron  the  wages  paid  to  the  laborers 
amount  to  over  $1.50,  and,  in  fact,  the  average  is  not  over  $1.35,  and 
perhaps  uot  over  $1.25. 

So  much  for  that.  Now,  what  of  coal0?  We  have  75  cents  per  ton 
protective  tariff  on  bituminous  coal,  also  “for  the  protection  of  the 
poor  workingmen.”  The  whole  wages  paid  to  miners  (by  the  ton)  now 
, for  mining  bituminous  coal  will  not  average  50  cents  per  ton.  Thus 
“the  benefit  to  the  poor  workingman”  is  that  he  gets  actually  25  cents 
per  ton  less  than  the  entire  amount  of  the  protective  tariff,  enacted 
ostensibly  for  his  benefit.  And  in  the  mean  time  enormous  Eastern 
manufacturing  interests  are  prevented  from  supplies  of  fuel  from  Nova 
Scotia  because  of  75  cents  duty. 

This  very  item  of  75  cents  per  ton  on  fuel  to  many  of  the  large  cotton 
and  other  manufactories  of  the  East  makes  the  difference  of  ability  to 
pay  wages  and  manufacture  goods  for  foreign  markets.  It  is,  in  fact, 
by  actual  computation  the  equal  of  a manufacturing  profit  to  English 
mills. 

Out  of  the  muddle  that  we  are  in  we  must  afford  the  greatest  scope 
for  the  employment  of  labor,  and  remove  every  tax  that  precludes  the 
employment  of  labor. 

I have  recommended  one  uniform  duty  of  25  per  cent,  upon  all  manu- 
factures without  favor  or  variation. 

In  view  of  the  condition  of  things  consequent  upon  the  errors  of  the 
past;  I believe  that  the  millions  upon  millions  of  misdirected  capital 
may  be  thus  saved  from  loss  to  the  nation,  as  a part  of  the  national 
wealth,  if  all  raw  material  is  made  free  of  duty,  and  every  impediment 
in  the  way  of  our  manufactures  being  able  to  make  commercial  com- 
petition in  the  markets  of  the  world  is  removed. 

The  true  principle  of  taxation  is  to  tax  upon  gains,  and  not  to  tax  so 
as  to  prevent  industry  and  the  consequent  gains. 

Our  present  system  tends  to  make  common  wreck  of  everything,  and 
but  for  the  beneficence  of  Divine  Providence  affording  us  the  fruits  of 
the  soil,  which  have  been  poured  out  with  lavish  profusion  and  from 
and  by  which  alone  our  foreign  indebtedness  has  been  balanced,  and  it 
is  a matter  of  easy  speculation  what  would  have  become  of  this  nation 
but  for  that. 

Upon  the  agricultural  interests  have  fallen  the  burden,  and  they  alone 
saved  us  from  national  bankruptcy,  and  that,  too,  while  having  the 
value  of  their  produce  fixed  in  the  free-trade  markets  of  the  world,  taking 
their  proceeds  through  the  exchanges,  and  having  their  purchasing 


456  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

power  here  reduced  by  50  to  100  per  cent,  by  protective  tariffs  upon 
every  article  of  their  consumption  in  domestic  use. 

How  long  will  that  great  interest  submit  to  this  system  of  wholesale 
plunder  for  the  benefit  of  interests  specially  favored  by  legislation! 

We  had  best  consider  the  rights  of  labor,  the  rights  of  agricultural 
interests,  before  it  is  too  late,  before  the  present  agitation  assumes  the 
form  of  discontent,  and  that  leading  on  to  anarchy. 

I contend  that  there  is  no  other  way  out  of  our  present  difficulties,  and 
though  my  words  are  but  the  expressions  of  the  opinion  of  one  ot  the 
multitude,  I warn  all  of  my  fellow-citizens  that  the  failure  to  return  to 
the  simple  principles  of  justice  and  right  towards  all  classes  is  only  to 
extend  and  perpetuate  endless  troubles. 

In  connection  with  the  question  of  reform  are  the  matters  of  our 
ancient  navigation  laws  and  the  very  serious  problem  as  to  how  to 
solve  the  matter  of  inter-State  commerce,  especially  as  regards  trans- 
portation and  the  rights  of  commercial  travelers,  all  having  more  or 
less  bearing  upon  and  relation  to  the  subject  and  involving  rights 
vouchsafed  under  the  Constitution. 

APPROPRIATIONS. 

I would  suggest  for  your  very  serious  consideration,  in  making  esti- 
mates upon  revenues  and  expenditures,  that  the  revenues  from  partic- 
ular sources  shall  be  designed  for  special  purposes  and  shall  be  so 
stated  in  the  annual  budget.  Perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  provide  for 
all  surplus  to  be  appropriated  to  the  reduction  of  the  public  debt. 

I would  reduce  as  much  as  possible  the  opportunity  for  all  sorts  of 
schemes  for  disposing  of  any  unappropriated  money. 

I would,  however,  consider  the  condition  of  our  Navy  and  our  forti- 
fications as  worthy  of  some  attention  specifically;  but  I would  make 
all  calls  for  taxes  for  revenue  to  be  appropriated  for  specific  purposes. 

I would  make  the  legislation  for  the  one  retroactive  upon  the  other, 
i.  e.f  revenue  upon  expenditure. 

Though  not  immediately  under  the  line  of  your  special  inquiries, 
I must  meution  the  matter  of  commercial  treaties,  which  should  be 
made,  or  reformed  where  we  now  have  such,  to  conform  to  the  usages 
of  the  age,  affording  reciprocal  protection  for  persons  and  their  property, 
and  providing  for  ministers  and  consuls,  at  the  request  of  owners  of 
property  in  foreign  countries,  to  be  obliged  to  protect  the  property  of 
American  citizens,  by  some  code  to  be  formulated  whereby  our  minis- 
ters and  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  country  to  which  they  are  sent 
shall  adjudicate  such  matters,  and  we  in  return  shall  grant  a reciprocal 
favor. 

This  is  an  important  matter,  and  should  receive  the  immediate  at- 
tention of  our  Government. 

Out  of  commercial  relations  and  transactions,  and  by  the  interna- 
tional intermarriage  of  subjects  of  different  countries,  properties  be- 
come, and  may  become,  subject  to  trespass  and  depredations  from  various 
reasons  of  absence  of  the  owner  from  personal  direction  and  control. 
Various  circumstances  may  arise  making  it  impossible  for  an  agent  to 
be  intrusted  with  the  powers  to  do,  or  the  ability  to  do,  without  the  long 
delays  of  courts  of  law,  what  might  be  done  with  facility  in  the  manner 
which  I suggest,  and  entirely  with  justice. 

Such,  too,  is  entirely,  I think,  within  the  proper  sphere  of  the  Govern- 
ment, in  protecting  the  citizen  and  his  property,  and,  foo,  in  a manner 
expeditious  and  just. 

There  are  many  other  things  which  I might  suggest  bearing  upon 
the  commercial  interests,  which  I will  not  urge  at  this  time. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


457 


What  I have  suggested,  I have  done  so  out  of  my  firm  convictions 
from  personal  experience,  as  being  to  the  end  that  from  such  sugges- 
tions you  may  give  them  such  weight  in  your  general  plan  of  reform  as 
may  result  in  actuality. 

Respectfully, 

WM.  D.  MARVEL. 


[Peter  Wright  & Sons,  tariff  legislation .] 

Philadelphia,  October  31,  3885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C.  : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  letter  of  September  24,  asking  us  for  a 
full  expression  of  our  views  upon  the  manner  of  handling  the  tariff 
question,  as  well  as  upon  customs  administration,  we  would  respectfully 
submit  the  following : 

TARIFF. 

Unless  a reasonable  certainty  exists  in  the  minds  of  those  competent 
to  judge  that  the  various  opinions  upon  the  tariff'  held  by  members  of 
Congress  who  are  favorable  to  some  reform  can  be  reconciled  and  united 
upon  a concerted  line  of  action,  with  fair  prospect  of  accomplishing  leg- 
islation, we  would  strongly  deprecate  any  attempt  at  a general  revision, 
believing  that,  however  unjust  the  present  tariff  law  may  be,  and  how- 
ever crude  and  ambiguous  in  many  of  its  details,  it  is  better  for  the 
general  interests  of  the  country  to  hold  to  it  with  a few  changes,  the 
propriety  of  which  must  be  acknowledged  by  all  fair-minded  men,  what- 
ever may  be  their  views  upon  the  principles  underlying  the  tariff,  than 
to  disturb  the  business  of  the  country  by  a long  contest  in  Congress 
against  a powerful,  well-informed,  and  united  body  of  men,  knowing 
just  what  they  want  and  just  how  to  take  advantages  of  the  divisions 
among  their  opponents,  ending  as  the  contest  did  last  winter,  and  as 
such  contests  between  a united  and  divided  party  must  always  end. 

Should  a general  revision  of  the  tariff  not  be  deemed  possible  or  ad- 
visable for  the  reasons  we  have  stated ; or  for  other  reasons,  and  the 
attempt  be  made  merely  to  correct  a few  of  the  more  glaring  defects  of 
the  present  law,  we  would  call  attention  (1)  to  those  provisions  of  the 
law  relating  to  undervaluation,  &c.  These,  we  think,  should  be  so 
amended  that  the  merchants  shall  enjoy  credit  for  good  faith  unless 
positive  proof  exists  to  the  contrary ; but  in  such  a case  let  the  law  pro- 
vide prompt  and  severe  punishment,  consisting  not  only  of  heavy  pe- 
cuniary penalties,  but  also  of  absolute  disqualification  for  business. 
That  foreign  manufacturers  shall  not  have  one  price  to  sell  and  another 
price  at  which  to  consign  to  their  agents  in  this  country  $ (2)  that  for- 
eign manufacturers  shall  not  be  permitted  by  consigning  their  entire 
production  to  themselves  in  this  country  to  make  a fictitious  value  for 
their  product,  for  dutiable  purposes,  without  regard  to  what  would  be 
considered  a fair  market  value  if  sold  at  place  of  production  $ (3)'  we 
would  recommend  that  the  duty  on  certain  lines  of  merchandise  neces- 
sary to  the  masses  of  our  people,  abnormally  increased  by  act  of  March 
4, 1883,  be  reduced  to  a level  with  the  duty  on  kindred  lines. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  a general  revision  of  the  tariff  is  deemed  possi- 
ble and  advisable,  we  would  offer  the  following  suggestions  : 

The  separation  of  all  dutiable  articles  into  two  classes — necessaries 
and  luxuries. 

Necessaries. — We  would  subdivide  into  raw  and  manufactured,  and 


458  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

by  raw  we  mean  a product  of  nature  not  changed  by  the  intervention 
of  either  skilled  labor  or  machinery.  These  we  would  admit  free. 

Partially  and  wholly  manufactured,  25  per  cent,  to  35  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  substituting  an  equivalent  specific  duty  whenever  possible 
without  discriminating  unjustly,  grading  the  rate  so  that  taking  into 
account  the  geographical  protection,  cost  of  packages,  packing,  &c., 
inland  freight,  shippiug  charges,  ocean  freight,  marine  insurance,  loss 
of  interest,  breakage,  damage,  or  deterioration  usually  incurred  before 
landing,  the  gross  protection  to  our  home  manufacturers  would  average 
about  50  per  cent,  of  the  foreign  cost. 

Geographical  protection. — We  regard  the  geographical  protection  en- 
joyed by  our  home  manufacturers  as  a very  important  factor  in  arriving 
at  the  proper  rate  of  duty,  for  while  it  is  only  a small  percentage  on  ar- 
ticles of  great  value  and  small  bulk,  it  is  a very  large  percentage  on 
many  articles  of  prime  necessity  of  small  value  as  compared  with  bulk, 
and  whatever  may  be  the  percentage,  it  is  easily  ascertained,  and  has 
the  great  merit  of  reasonable  stability,  being  affected  neither  by  legis- 
lation nor  undervaluation  of  invoices. 

Luxuries. — We  would  assess  at  as  high  a rate  of  duty,  either  ad  valo- 
rem or  specific,  as  experience  shows  could  be  collected  without  encour- 
aging fraud.  Older  nations  than  ours  long  ago  demonstrated  the  fact 
that  there  is  a point  where  smuggling  and  undervaluation  not  only 
become  possible,  but  comparative^7  easy,  and  more  unfortunately  still 
where  the  community  becomes  callous  to  such  offenses,  and  juries  re- 
fuse to  convict. 

We  consider  both  coffee  and  tea,  now  on  the  free  list,  as  proper  ar- 
ticles for  taxation  under  the  head  of  luxuries. 

We  believe  a tariff  based  on  such  a scheme  as  we  have  outlined,  prop- 
erly digested,  and  the  details  arranged  by  competent  experts,  would  be 
beneficial  to  the  whole  country. 

CUSTOMS  ADMINISTRATION. 

Naval  officer. — We  would  recommend  the  doing  away  of  this  office, 
uot  only  because  it  is  a useless  one,  coming  down  to  us  from  the  time  of 
Charles  II,  but  because  by  a system  of  checks  between  estimating  clerks 
and  appraiser  the  rate  of  duty  assessable,  as  well  as  the  amount,  can  be 
more  easily  and  satisfactorily  ascertained. 

Surveyor. — We  would  recommend  the  doing  away  of  this  office  and 
turning  its  duties  over  to  a deputy  collector,  thereby  bringing  them 
more  directly  under  control  of  the  collector. 

We  believe  the  above  recommendations  are  in  the  line  of  efficiency 
and  economy  in  the  service. 

Very  respectfully, 

PETER  WRIGHT  & SONS. 


[J.  A.  Pilling,  tariff  legislation.'] 

December  1, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury , Washington: 

Sir:  I see  from  the  public  prints  that  you  have  addressed  a circular 
letter  to  the  manufacturers  and  importers  of  the  country  asking  for 
information  upon  matters  pertaining  to  the  tariff,  with  a view  to  the 
reconstruction  and  simplification  of  import  duties. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  a high  tariff  is  a direct  benefit  and  advantage,  in 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


459 


fact  a subsidy,  to  the  manufacturer,  enabling  him  to  realize  immense 
profits  from  his  business,  and  a low  tariff  would  act  in  the  opposite 
direction,  it  is  unreasonable  to  expect  that  the  manufacturers  will  sup- 
ply information  of  an  impartial  and  disinterested  character.  They 
cannot  be  parties  to  the  killing  of  the  goose  that  lays  the  golden  egg. 
Therefore,  any  information  derived  from  such  a source  must,  and  no 
doubt  will,  by  the  present  Government,  be  received  with  caution  and 
reservation. 

The  Government  is  pledged  to  revise  the  tariff  in  a spirit  of  fairness 
to  all  interests,  and  it  is  a very  difficult  task  to  perform.  The  object 
in  view  should  be  to  reduce  the  tariff’ upon  foreign  manufactures  in  such 
a degree  that  no  injustice  may  be  done  to  existing  home  industries,  to 
enhance  as  far  as  practicable,  haviug  regard  to  the  interests  of  all,  the 
purchasing  power  of  the  dollar;  to  take  care  that  as  little  injury  as 
possible  is  done  to  the  wage-earning  classes ; to  haye  consideration  and 
regard  for  the  necessities  of  the  poor,  and  see  to  it  that  the  luxuries  of  the 
rich  bear  their  fair  share  of  the  burden  of  taxatiou;  to  hold  the  balance 
fairly  and  squarely  between  the  producer  and  consumer,  that  the  former 
may  not  be  excessive  in  his  demands  and  the  latter  willing  to  pay  fair 
remuneration  for  value  received. 

To  dovetail  these  conflicting  elements  js  a mighty  work,  but  one  which 
the  Government,  I have  no  doubt,  will  bring  to  a successful  issue. 

I have  given  much  study  to  this  subject,  and  venture  to  advance,  for 
your  consideration,  the  following  points  : The  first  argument  of  the  up- 
holders of  high  tariff  or  protection  is  that  low  tariff  would  bring  ruina- 
tion upon  the  manufacturing  interests  of  this  country  by  flooding  the 
country  with  the  cheaper  productions  of  foreign  countries  and  by  thus 
stopping  the  demand  for  the  higher- priced  home-made  articles,  the  sup- 
ply would  of  necessity  cease  and  the  mills  would,  as  a natural  sequence, 
shut  up,  and  thus  thousands  of  mill-operatives  would  be  thrown  out  of 
work. 

In  reply  to  this  argument,  the  protectionist  would  have  you  believe 
that  foreign  manufacturers  are  producing  at  less  cost  every  class  of 
article  that  is  made  in  this  country.  The  fact  is  in  fifteen  branches  of 
trade  the  American  is  to-day  producing  goods  as  cheap  as  and  of  equal 
quality  to  any  foreign-made  article  in  these  fifteen  branches,  some  of 
which  rank  as  great  industries  in  these  United  States.  Therefore,  let 
it  be  remembered  .that  even  a total  repeal  of  all  import  duties  on  these 
classes  of  goods  would  do  little  or  no  injury  to  these  fifteen  various 
branches.  They  are  as  follows,  with  the  amount  of  duty  derived  from 
each  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1883 : 


Flour  milling  and  breadstuff's $3, 779, 705 

Brewers,  beer,  ale,  &c 511, 382 

Wood  and  its  manufactures 1, 703, 096 

Carriages  and  parts  thereof 48, 348 

Agricultural  implements  (included  in  wood  and  other  items) 

Clocks  and  watches 784,443 

Leather  and  its  manufactures  (boots  and  shoes) 3, 770, 547 

Books  and  other  printed  matter 771, 508 

Provisions 407, 462 

Paper 645, 691 

Fish 357,978 

Animals  (alive)  806, 164 

Coal 515, 097 

Musical  instruments 445, 893 


Total 14,546,314 


460  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


These  $14,000,000  might  be  taken  off  the  tariff  without  injury  to  home 
industries  and  with  great  advantage  and  saving  to  those  who  are  now 
consuming  these  imported  articles. 

Of  these  15  branches  we  export  as  follows,  showing  that  we  are  suc- 
cessfully competing  against  the  world : 


Bread  and  breadstulfs 

Beer,  ale,  and  porter 

Wood  and  its  manufactures 

Carriages,  &c 

Agricultural  implements 

Clocks  and  watches 

Leather  and  its  manufactures  . . 
Books  and  other  printed  matter 

Provisions 

Paper 

Fish ; 

Animals  (alive) : 

Coal 

Musical  instrumen  ts 


$208, 040, 850 
490, 442 
26, 793, 708 
3, 508, 405 
3, 883, 919 
1,  479,  731 
7,923,662 
1,018, 138 
107, 388, 287 
1,589,908 
6, 276, 375 
10, 789, 268 
4,241,247 
1,203,612 


It  is  obvious  that  these  branches  of  industry  need  no  protection. 


Branch  2. — Articles  not  produced  in  this  country , thus  rendering  protection  unnecessary. 


Tin,  duty  derived ! $5,  075,  052 

Fruits,  nuts,  &c.,  duty  derived 4,603,455 

Spices,  duty  derived 873,885 

Seeds,  duty  deri  ved  314, 228 

Trees  and  shrubs,  duty  derived 27,128 

Cement,  duty  derived 160,458 

Cocoa  and  cork,  duty  derived 33, 656 


11, 087, 862 


Branch  3. — Articles  manufactured  in  this  country  only  to  a small  extent. 


Silk,  duty  derived $19, 654, 946 

Flax,  duty  derived 7,584,342 

Hemp,  duty  derived 2, 615, 392 

Chemicals,  drugs,  medicines 6,053,574 


35,908,234 


Branch  4. — Articles  manufactured  largely  and  which  would  he  adversely  affected  by  a too 

great  reduction  of  tariff. 


Woolen  goods,  duty  derived  (68  per  cent.) $32, 320, 892 

Cotton  goods,  duty  derived  12, 234, 371 

Iron  and  steel,  duty  derived  (40  per  cent.) 16,590,503 

Glass  goods,  duty  derived  (55  per  cent.) 4, 182,616 

Earthenware  and  china  (43  per  cent.) 3,746,488 


69, 074, 870 

Branch  5. — Luxuries. 


Diamonds,  paintings,  statuary,  furs,  tobacco,  &c.,  might  either  re- 
main as  at  present,  or,  if  the  demands  of  revenue  require,  it  might,  with 
the  exception  of  tobacco,  be  advanced. 

Deductions  to  be  made : 

It  is  obvious  that  if  branch  1,  consisting  of  15  trades,  is  now  able  to 
manufacture  goods  equal  to  and  as  cheaply  as  any  or  all  foreign  manu- 
facturers, it  is  able  to  compete  with  them  successfully  at  home,  when 
by  our  exports  it  is  clearly  shown  that  a successful  competition  is  being 


Revision  of  the  tariff. 


461 


Carried  on  in  their  own  foreign  markets.  Therefore,  these  15  trades 
need  no  protection,  and  fourteen  millions  can  be  spared  from  the  reve- 
nue to  the  great  advantage  of  the  consumer. 

Branch  2. — These  goods  not  being  produced  in  this  country,  there  is 
no  home  industry  to  protect,  and  in  the  interest  of  the  consumer  this 
eleven  millions  might  be  taken  off,  without  injury  to  the  traders  in  these 
goods. 

Branch  3. — These  trades  cannot  be  counted  amongst  the  great  indus- 
tries of  this  country,  and  yet  the  people  are  taxed  thirty-live  millions 
annually  for  their  protection;  the  interests  of  the  small  number  of  man- 
ufacturers even  must  be  guarded,  but  when  it  is  considered  that  they  are 
so  few  in  comparison  with  the  vast  body  of  consumers,  it  is  unfair  that 
the  great  majority  should  be  thus  heavily  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  this 
small  minority.  A considerable  reduction  in  this  branch  might  be 
instituted. 

Branch  4. — Are  these  trades  able  to  compete  with  the  foreign  manu- 
facturers of  like  goods'?  If  they  are  they  need  no  protection;  if  they 
are  unable,  then  they  require,  and  it  is  politic  to  grant  them,  protection. 
The  question  is  how  much  protection  is  needed  that  the  manufacturer 
may  keep  up  his  position  and  no  injustice  be  done  the  consumer  who 
is  again  in  the  majority.  Without  a doubt  68  per  cent,  in  woolens  is 
too  high;  there  is  no  reason  that  I know  of  why  the  American  cannot 
compete  with  the  foreigner,  except  possibly  the  question  of  wages,  there- 
fore handicap  the  manufacturer,  that  he  may  meet  this  additional  wage, 
and  he  should  be  satisfied.  The  same  applies  to  the  iron,  cotton,  glass, 
and  earthenware  trades.  My  judgment  is,  that  if  the  duties  in  branch 
4 were  reduced  one-half  these  trades  would  be  favorably  handicapped. 

The  revenue  under  the  last  administration  was  in  excess  of  the  ex- 
penditure $100,000,000  or  thereabouts.  The  Democratic  party  charged 
their  opponents  (and  truthfully,  too)  that  they  had  drawn  from  the 
pockets  of  the  people  this  vast  sum  without  any  necessity.  It  thus  be- 
comes the  duty  of  the  party  with  which  you,  sir,  are  associated,  to  bring 
about  such  a reform  as  will  put  an  end  to  this  state  of  things.  Now  my 
suggestions  would  lead  to  a saving  of — 


Brancli  1 
Branch  2 
Branch  3 
Branch  4 


$14, 546, 314 
11,087,862 
35, 908, 234 
34, 537, 434 


Total 


96,079, 844 


I am,  sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

F.  A.  PILLING, 

Owing’s  Mills , Baltimore  County , Maryland. 


[J.  H.  Tribbey,  tariff  legislation.'] 

Secor,  III.,  November  16, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir:  In  answer  to  your  circular  of  inquiry  respecting  the  tariff 
question,  let  me  say  that  I hold  that  any  tariff  legislation  that  will  re- 
quire the  masses  of  our  people  to  pay  a bounty  to  a favored  few  of  our 
American  citizens  is  wrong  and  should  be  abolished.  Furthermore,  I 
hold  it  is  in  open  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 


462  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

and  detrimental  to  the  general  welfare  of  our  people,  for  any  law  en- 
acted by  Congress  that  will  effect  a prohibition  of  foreign  commerce  to 
this  country  will  surely  prohibit  the  surplus  exports  of  this  country  to 
such  foreign  state.  Therefore  Congress  should  take  immediate  steps 
to  repeal  all  laws,  or  modify  the  same  to  that  extent  that  there  should 
be  no  more  revenue  collected  than  will  pay  its  reasonable  portion  of 
the  general  expenses  of  the  United  States  Government.  I hold  any 
other  revenue  collected  is  oppressive  to  the  great  masses,  for  the  rev- 
enue placed  upon  foreign  goods  so  high  that  it  will  protect  home  man- 
ufactures to  the  detriment  of  consumers  is  wholly  wrong  and  should  be 
abolished.  Protectionists  tell  us  of  the  great  things  that  the  tariff  has 
done  for  America,  as  though  it  was  the  tariff  that  produced  from  six  to 
seven  hundred  million  bushels  of  corn  per  annum,  or  as  if  the  illimit- 
able forests  and  pine  timbers  in  Michigan  were  all  due  to  the  tariff. 
Let  us  see  how  this  is.  Our  neighbors  of  South  and  Central  America 
and  the  West  Indies,  whose  total  foreign  trade  exceeds  $1,141,223,440 
per  annum ; we  do  not  sell  them  but  12£  per  cent,  of  the  food  and 
American  manufactures.  This  being  the  case  with  South  and  Central 
America  and  the  West  Indies,  is  it  not  true  with  all  other  foreign 
States  that  would  gladly  purchase  of  us  our  surplus  products  ? Is  it 
not  natural  for  men  to  trade  with  men  whom  they  consider  their  friends 
and  not  their  enemies.  Therefore,  legislation  should  be  of  that  charac- 
ter that  would  court  a friendship  with  all  nations.  Let  me  ask  you 
why  it  was  that  a Senator  got  on  the  rampage  when  Germany  placed 
an  embargo  upon  American  pork.  If  Congress  could  with  impunity 
place  a high  protective  tariff  upon  wine,  so  high  that  Germany  could 
not  ship  her  surplus  wine  to  this  country,  is  it  anything  strange  that 
Germany  should  retaliate  by  placing  an  embargo  upon  American  pork? 
It  seems  as  though  the  Senator  was  of  the  opinion  that  Germany  must 
submit  to  our  prohibitory  legislation  and  bow  down,  and  take  that 
which  we  may  have  to  sell  free  and  without  restraint  whatever.  iSow, 
I have  called  your  attention  to  a few  facts,  let  me  urge,  upon  you  my 
views  upon  the  question  of  the  tariff.  jSTo  tinkering  should  be  tolerated 
for  a moment,  but  wipe  it  off  our  statutes,  abolish  the  system,  and  get 
rid  of  that  multitude  of  officers  that  is  required  to  make  the  assess- 
ments and  collections  of  revenue  tax,  and  run  our  Government  upon  the 
same  basis  that  we  run  our  State  governments.  The  same  assessors 
and  collectors  that  assess  our  town,  county,  and  state  tax  can  just  as 
well  collect  a direct  tax  for  the  General  Government,  and  save  the  ex- 
pense of  a multiplicity  of  officers  under  the  present  system.  Congress 
should  immediately  take  into  consideration  and  enact  such  laws  that 
will  enable  Americans  to  buy  where  they  can  buy  cheapest  sea-going 
vessels,  that  our  commercial  fleet  may  be  trebled  and  respected  upon 
the  high  seas,  and  compete  with  other  nations  to  foreign  shores,  of 
which  under  our  present  system  we  lose  in  place  of  receiving  any 
benefit.  With  the  repeal  of  our  protective  tariff  laws  we  can  build  a 
commercial  fleet  that  will  compete  with  any  nation  of  the  world,  and 
not  only  be  a saving  to  us,  but  will  be  an  honor  to  this  great  Repub- 
lic of  which  we  boast.  We  have  the  executive  and  ther  legislative 
branches  of  the  Government,  except  the  Senate,  which  may  thwart  legis- 
lation in  this  direction,  but  if  so,  we  have  yet  a remedy  left,  and  that 
is,  if  the  Senate  fails  to  concur  with  the  House  of  Representatives  in 
the  repeal  of  the  protective  tariff  laws  now  upon  our  statutes,  let  there 
be  a test  case  and  bring  it  before  the  Supreme  Court  and  test  the  con- 
stitutionality of  our  protective  tariff  laws  that  will  forever  settle  this 
class  legislation;  as  I feel  and  know  that  we  have  legal  talent  all-suf- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


463 


ficient  that  will  be  more  than  ready  and  willing  to  present  and  protect 
the  rights  of  all  American  citizens  in  their  just  constitutional  rights. 

As  you  will  notice,  I deferred  closing  this  article  on  account  of  the  free 
traders’  convention  in  Chicago.  Having  received  a full  report  of  which, 
I presume  you  have  been  thoroughly  notified,  which  gives  a very 
thorough  meaning  of  what  I consider  to  the  best  interest  of  all  Amer- 
ican citizens.  There  is  another  great  reason  why  the  present  protective 
tariff  system  should  be  abolished.  The  President  of  the  United  States, 
before  he  can  take  his  seat,  shall  solemnly  swear  or  affirm  that  he  will 
faithfully  execute  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  and  will 
to  the  best  of  his  ability  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  Therefore,  any  law  enacted  by  Congress  in  viola- 
tion to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  asking  the  President  of 
the  United  States  to  enforce  a law  in  opposition  to  that  which  he  has 
sworn  to  protect  and  defend. 

Sir,  permit  me  to  be  your  most  obedient  servant,  &c. 

J.  H.  TRIBBEY. 


[West  Point  Foundry,  tariff  legislation.] 

New  York,  December  5,  1885. 
The  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir  : According  to  notices  in  the  daily  papers  there  are  to  be  at  least 
one  or  two  bills  introduced  in  the  House  for  the  purpose  of  changing 
the  tariff.  As  you  have  called  for  the  opinions  of  manufacturers  on  the 
subject  in  order  to  present  their  general  views,  we  would  respectfully 
offer  the  suggestion  that  before  any  agitation  of  the  tariff  question  com- 
mences a law  should  be  passed  that  any  new  act  shall  not  go  into  effect 
for  either  two  or  three  years  from  the  date  of  its  enactment. 

Bad  as  the  tariff  may  be  in  some  respects,  constant  agitation  of  the 
subject  is  much  worse  for  all  business  interests,  and  has  a most  depress- 
ing effect  upon  our  manufactures. 

If,  however,  there  is  a certainty  that  there  will  be  no  change  for,  say 
two  years,  there  will  be  an  opportunity  to  arrange  contracts  and  pre- 
pare gradually  for  any  effect  of  a new  law. 

We  think  it  would  greatly  benefit  all  business  if  some  assurance  of 
this  kind  can  be  given  by  Congress. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

West  Point  Foundry  Association. 

By  C.  J.  NOURSE,  Jr.,  President. 


[Ostheimer  Brothers,  tariff  revision  and  administration .] 

Philadelphia,  November  20, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , W ashington,  D.  G.: 

Sir:  Tn  reply  to  your  letter  of  July  24  we  take  the  liberty  of  call- 
ing your  attention  to  a few  practical  suggestions  we  have  to  make,  and 
trust  they  will  be  of  service  to  you.  There  is  no  doubt  whatever  but 
that  every  honest  importer  in  the  United  States  is  strongly  in  favor  of 
the  adoption  of  specific  duties,  as  it  is  universally  conceded  that  by  this 


464  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


means  only  can  the  duties  be  honestly  and  justly  collected.  Almost 
every  civilized  nation  has  adopted  a specific  tariff,  and  every  business 
man  will  say  that  the  uncertainty,  injustice,  and  arbitrariness  of  an  ad 
valorem  tariff  make  specific  duties  almost  an  absolute  necessity. 

Knowing,  however,  how  varied  the  opinions  are,  and  how  difficult  it 
will  be  to  transform  our  present  system  of  tariff  into  a specific  one,  we 
propose  the  following  method  as  the  most  practicable,  and  sincerely 
trust  it  will  meet  with  favor  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  makers. 

The  merchant  of  the  present  day,  as  a rule,  is  a man  of  considerable 
education,  and  fully  capable  of  battling  with  difficult  and  knotty  ques- 
tions in  matters  where  his  interests  are  at  stake ; much  more  so  than  the 
majority  of  lawyers  who  are  called  upon  in  Congress  to  determine  and 
decide  points  in  whhh  they  have  never  had  any  practical  experience. 
We  would  therefore  suggest  that  the  collectors  of  the  following  ports 
each  appoint  25  reputable  merchants,  to  be  selected  from  importers  and 
manufacturers  in  the  various  lines,  whose  duties  shall  be  to  meet  in  con- 
vention at  New  York  at  a certain  stated  time,  organize  as  a convention 
to  discuss  the  practicability  of  changing  the  present  ad  valorem  tariff 
into  a specific  one,  and  make  a report  to  you  to  be  submitted  to  Congress 
at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  It  might  be  well  to  request  the  collector 
of  each  port  to  consult  with  the  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce 
in  each  city,  and  to  obtain  from  that  gentleman  some  information  as  to 
the  names  to  be  selected.  The  committee  of  200,  or  25  from  each  city, 
to  come  from  the  following  ports  of  entry : New  York,  Philadelphia, 
Boston,  Baltimore,  Chicago,  Saint  Louis,  New  Orleans,  San  Francisco. 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  object  of  the  convention,  we  would  suggest 
that  skilled  experts  be  called  in  to  propose  the  simplest  methods  of 
arriving  at  a satisfactory  solution,  and  that  the  Government  place  the 
various  heads  of  the  customs  service  at  the  disposal  of  such  conven- 
tion— in  short,  that  no  pains  or  expense  be  spared  to  attain  the  ob- 
ject for  which  the  convention  has  been  called  together. 

The  greatest  difficulty  which  all  honest  and  legitimate  importers  have 
had  to  fight  against  is  competition  with  manufacturers  abroad,  who 
have  their  own  houses  or  agents  here,  and  who  refuse  to  sell  to  any  one 
except  to  themselves,  thus  making  the  question  of  market  value  an 
almost  impossible  one  for  the  examiner  and  appraiser  to  determine. 
This  exists  in  almost  every  line  of  goods,  and  while  we  have  no  doubt 
that  in  most  cases  these  manufacturers  try  to  get  at  the  correct  mar- 
ket value,  the  temptation  is  certainly  very  great  to  defraud  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  the  dishonest  merchants  take  advantage  of  it. 

An  importer  who  buys  all  his  goods  abroad  has  no  difficulty  to  fix 
the  market  value,  as  this  is  certainly  the  price  which  he  really  pays, 
for,  according  to  our  idea,  the  market  value  of  an  article  is  the  price 
at  which  the  maker  would  sell  such  article  to  each  and  every  buyer. 
This  we  feel  convinced  was  what  was  meant  when  the  law  was  made, 
that  the  duties  must  be  levied  on  the  market  value  of  the  article. 
But  a manufacturer  who  only  sells  goods  to  himself  makes  his  own 
market  values  according  to  the  prices  he  paid  for  his  raw  material, 
for  cash  or  on  credit,  according  to  the  wages  he  has  to  pay,  and  to 
a variety  of  circumstances,  all  affecting  the  mode  and  process  of  manu- 
facture. 

Various  manufacturers  in  the  same  line  have  different  ideas  as  to 
what  the  market  values  should  be,  and  thus  much  difficulty  is  natur- 
ally encountered  by  the  examiner,  and  many  reappraisements  made 
necessary.  We  would  suggest  that  a law  be  passed  in  case  specific 
duties  are  not  found  to  be  possible,  making  it  compulsory  that  a profit 
of  at  least  10  per  cent,  be  added  to  the  cost  of  all  goods  sent  to  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


465 


United  States  by  manufacturers  to  their  agents,  and  that  in  case  it  is 
found  on  reappraisement  that  such  10  per  cent,  has  not  been  added  to 
each  and  every  item  on  the  invoice,  a penalty  of  25  per  cent,  on  the 
entire  invoice  be  imposed.  We  would  also  suggest  that  some  change 
be  made  in  the  present  method  of  reappraisements,  as  we  are  con- 
vinced that  many  unjust  decisions  are  rendered  under  the  existing 
laws. 

At  present  the  examiner  who,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  ap- 
praiser, raises  the  invoice  because  he  thinks  tbe  goods  are  undervalued, 
is  a Government  employ^,  and  does  so  because  he  believes  it  to  be  his 
duty.  A reappraisement  is  demanded  by  the  importer,  and  the  general 
appraiser  becomes  the  guardian  of  the  interests  of  the  Government,  and 
his  convictions  being  also  honest  are  also  naturally  favorable  to  the 
Government.  The  collector,  also  a representative  of  the  Government, 
chooses  a reputable  merchant,  usually  a competitor  of  the  importer  in 
question,  who,  together  with  the  general  appraiser,  settle  the  question 
of  market  value.  We  think  it  would  be  very  much  fairer  to  have  the 
collector  appoint  five  reputable  merchants,  who,  with  the  general  ap- 
praiser, are  to  hear  the  evidence  of  both  sides  from  the  importer  and 
from  the  Government  employes,  and  then  render  a decision,  as  it  very 
often  happens  that  the  merchant  appraiser  appointed  is  very  much  prej- 
udiced against  the  importer  charged  with  undervaluation,  and  his  de- 
cision cannot  possibly  be  a just  one.  It  might  even  be  well  for  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  to  appoint  at  every  port  of  entry  a reappraise- 
ment committee  selected  from  the  chamber  of  commerce  of  such  port 
of  entry,  and  such  reappraisement  committee  to  be  appointed  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  collector  of  the  port. 

Sincerely  hoping  that  our  suggestions  may  be  of  some  service,  we  beg 
to  place  our  services  at  your  disposal  should  they  be  needed,  and  have 
the  honor  to  be, 

Yours,  most  respectfully, 

OSTHEIMER  BROTHERS, 


[Robert  S.  Griffin,  duties  based  on  cost  of  labor ] 

Worcester,  Mass.,  September  19,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning: 

Dear  Sir  : Could  not  a practical  tariff  on  imported  manufactures 
and  products  be  substituted  for  the  present  one,  based  on  the  labor  cost 
of  manufacturing  or  producing  them  in  this  country? 

To  explain:  The  tariff  on  an  article  in  which  the  labor  cost  was  10 
p r cent,  say  of  its  market  value  would  be  subject  to  one-fifth  the 
amount  that  another  would  in  which  the  labor  cost  was  50  per  cent,  of 
its  value.  This  would  be  equivalent  to  raw  materials  free  and  a uniform 
tariff*  on  the  labor  which  had  been  added  to  them  at  the  time  of  im- 
portation. 

It  could  be  fixed  at  any  per  cent,  (of  the  whole  labor  cost)  necessary 
to  yield  the  desired  amount  of  revenue,  and  if  at  any  time  a larger  or 
smaller  amount  was  desirable,  add  to  or  take  off  a uniform  per  cent. 

Would  not  this  be  fair  and  equitable  to  every  industry  and  furnish 
all  the  legitimate  protection  possible,  and  just  to  labor  and  the  home 
market? 

Respectfully,  yours, 

S.  Ex.  72  ■"  ■ -30 


ROBERT  S.  GRIFFIN. 


466  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[The  same.  ] 

Worcester,  Mass.,  November  13, 1885. 

Allow  me  to  add  that  the  object  is  to  obtain  a reveuue  from  importa- 
tions by  a tariff  system  having  an  impartial  basis,  one  that  would  be 
comparatively  what  civil  service  principles  are  to  the  public  offices,  in- 
stead of  leaving  it  to  the  influence  of  the  many  conflicting  interests  that 
are  brought  to  bear  upon  Congress  at  every  change  that  is  agitated  or 
made.  It  would  protect  the  workman  and  producer  by  taxing  the  work 
of  their  foreign  competitors  when  imported,  the  manufacturers  in  the 
home  market  to  the  same  extent,  and  practically  furnish  them  raw  ma- 
terials free.  This  would  assist  them  to  compete  in  the  markets  of  the 
world,  and  a larger  amount  of  work  would  naturally  lead  to  better  pay 
and  increased  prosperity  for  all. 

Respectfully  yours, 

ROBERT  S.  GRIFFIN. 


[Charles  B.  Curtis,  works  of  art.'] 

New  York,  November  14,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir:  I have  not  received  your  circular  issued  with  the  view  of  ob- 
taining suggestions  as  to  modifications  of  the  tariff,  and  perhaps  I 
do  not  belong  to  any  of  the  classes  to  which  it  is  addressed.  I have, 
however,  given  some  thought  to  two  branches  of  the  subject  of  your 
inquiries,  and  I venture  to  present  my  views  thereon.  I refer  to  duties 
on  works  of  art,  and  on  books. 

As  chairman  of  the  committee  on  art  of  the  Union  League  Club,  and 
by  authority  of  the  club,  I recently  sent  a circular  to  every  artist,  teacher, 
and  institution  of  art  in  the  United  States,  whose  address  could  be 
obtained,  asking  for  an  expression  of  opinion  as  to  the  policy  it  was 
desired  the  Government  should  pursue  in  levying  duties  on  works  of 
art.  1 have  in  my  possession  replies  in  the  form  of  petitions  signed  by 
one  thousand  four  hundred  and  thirty-five  individuals  and  societies. 
It  will  be  noted  that  no  inquiries  were  addressed  to  dealers  or  amateurs 
or  to  the  general  public — but  only  to  artists  and  artistic  societies  and 
institutions.  The  result  is  most  surprising  and  is  as  follows.  There 
were  of  these  favorable  to — 


The  present  duty  of  30  per  cent 7 

Foraner  duty  of  10  per  cent . 28 

A specific  duty 34 

Divided,  i.  e.,  some  art  objects  dutiable  and  others  free 21 

For  abolition  of  all  duty 1, 345 


Total 1,435 


It  will  be  seen  that  more  than  93  per  cent,  of  the  petitioners  are  in 
favor  of  free  art , and  less  than  one-lialf  of  one  per  cent,  are  favorable  to 
the  present  law. 

This  most  extraordinary  result  shows  a degree  of  unanimity  that 
could  hardly  be  expected  in  auy  other  subjects  of  human  inquiry.  I think 
the  opinions  of  these  persons,  who  are  specially  interested  in  the  sub- 
ject, are  entitled  to  the  most  respectful  consideration. 

The  original  petitions  with  signatures  attached  are  in  my  possession, 
and  they  will  in  due  time  be  presented  to  Congress. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


467 


You  are  doubtless  aware  that  before  the  outbreak  of  the  recent  war 
works  of  art  were  admitted  to  our  ports  free.  The  necessities  of  the 
Government,  in  the  opinion  of  Congress,  justified  at  that  time  the  im- 
position of  a moderate  duty,  and  the  rate  established  in  1861  was  the 
lowest  that  was  levied  on  any  dutiable  article  imported  into  the  coun- 
try, viz,  10  per  cent.  This  law  remained  in  force  for  twenty-two  years 
without  serious  objection,  although  it  was  not  satisfactory  to  our  ar- 
tists, who  from  time  to  time  petitioned  for  relief.  When  the  change 
came  it  was  like  a thunderbolt  from  a cloudless  sky.  In  place  of  the 
bread  they  asked  for  1»hey  got  a stone ; instead  of  removing  the  duties 
a,s  the  artists  desired,  Congress  increased  it  threefold,  making  the  rate 
higher  than  is  imposed  by  any  nation  on  earth. 

But  what  was  more  extraordinary  than  the  law  itself  is  the  way  it 
was  brought  about. 

The  press  did  not  advocate,  nor  did  the  people  demand  it.  The  tariff 
commission,  although  charged  with  strong  sympathy  with  protection, 
did  not  recommend  a change.  The  records  of  Congress  fail  to  show 
that  any  memorial  or  petition  for  increased  duties  was  ever  presented 
by  any  artist,  or  any  individual,  or  any  society.  No  bill  to  that  effect 
had  ever  been  considered  or  even  introduced.  No  legislator  ever  pro- 
posed or  advocated  the  passage  of  such  a law.  The  rules  of  legislation 
require  that  a bill  shall  pass  through  certain  forms  before  it  can  become  a 
law.  It  must  be  introduced  by  a member,  referred  to  a committee,  re 
ported,  read  three  times  on  different  days,  and  finally  receive,  an  affirm- 
ative vote  of  both  houses  of  Congress.  Not  one  of  these  requirements 
was  ever  met,  except,  in  a confused  way,  the  last. 

The  history  is,  briefly,  this:  The  Senate  and  House  disagreed  as  to 
some  of  the  details  of  a tariff*  bill  pending  at  the  close  of  the  session. 
Committees  of  conference  were  appointed,  which  not  only  adjusted  the 
differences  between  the  houses,  but  they  inserted  in  the  bill  entirely 
new  matter,  relating  to  a subject  that  had  never  been  before  Congress 
in  any  form.  Two  or  three  lines  were  inserted  in  the  bill,  and  in  the 
confusion  that  attended  the  closing  hours  of  the  session  they  escaped 
observation  and  became  the  law  of  the  land  on  the  3d  day  of  March, 
1883. 

Not  to  make  my  letter  prolix  I will  condense  my  argument  into  a 
few  brief  propositions. 

(1)  The  present  duty  cannot  be  excused  on  the  plea  of  necessity. 
The  Treasury  is  overflowing,  and  the  problem  is  how,  without  injury  to 
existing  interests,  to  arrest  the  progress  of  congestion. 

(2)  There  is  no  obligation  on  the  part  of  Government  to  protect  a class 
that  strongly  protests  that  it  does  not  need  assistance  and  is  injured  by 
it. 

(3)  When  so  many  interests  are  clamoring  for  protection,  and  this 
one  is  crying  out  against  it,  Congress  is  fortunate  in  being  able  to  sat- 
isfy both  sides  and  at  the  same  time  aid  the  public.  By  removing  the 
duties  on  ivories  of  art  we  may  retain  them  on  such  manufactures  as  call 

for  help. 

(4)  As  a revenue  measure  the  present  law  is  a complete  failure.  In 
the  last  year  of  the  old  tariff  the  duties  paid  on  paintings  and  statuary 
at  10  per  cent,  were  $307,886.74.  In  the  first  year  of  the  new  tariff  the 
duties  at  30  per  cent,  amounted  to  only  $101,362.11.  Increasing  the 
rate  threefold  resulted  in  diminishing  the  revenue  about  40  per  cent. 
This  decrease  cannot  be  to  any  great  extent  attributed  to  a general 
depression  of  trade,  since  the  total  imports  into  the  country  declined 
only  7 per  cent.,  while  such  luxuries  as  fancy  articles,  jewelry,  and  pre- 


468  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


cious  stones  showed  an  actual  increase.  (Treasury  Report  1884,  pp. 
481-3.) 

(5)  We  have  not  by  this  policy  benefited  American  artists,  for  their 
sales  by  their  own  account,  and  as  officially  stated  by  the  managers  of 
public  societies  and  exhibitions,  have  decreased. 

(6)  We  have  injured  American  artists  by  curtailing  foreign  demand 
for  their  works.  The  exports  of  paintings  by  American  artists  are  offi- 
cially shown  to  have  declined  from  $387,857  in  1883,  to  $170,389  in  1884. 

(7)  We  have  incurred  the  ill-will  of  foreign  nations  who  have  strongly 
remonstrated  against  our  present  law. 

(8)  Ours  is  almost  the  only  country  in  the  world  that  imposes  a duty 
on  works  of  art.  France,  Italy,  Russia,  Germany,  &c.,  are  protective 
nations,  but  they  levy  no  tribute  on  the  productions  of  genius.  These 
objects  are  also  free  in  Sweden, Norway,  Holland,  Belgium,  Austria,  Can- 
ada, and  in  every  other  enlightened  nation.  The  countries  in  which  they 
are  taxed  are  as  follows:  Mexico,  57  cents  each,  and  40  cents  per  pound ; 
Guatemala  and  Venezula,  about  12  cents  per  pound;  Colombia,  22  cents 
per  pound;  Chili,  $2.40  per  square  foot;  Spain,  20  cents  per  each  pict- 
ure; Servia,  8 per  cent.  The  United  States  extorts  30  jper  cent.  In  this 
respect  our  policy  is  so  completely  at  variauce  with  that  of  the  rest  of 
the  world  that  we  can  justify  ourselves  only  by  showing  that  all  other 
nations  are  wanting  in  sense  and  that  here  only  is  true  wisdom  to  be 
found. 

There  are  numerous  suggestions  I might  make  having  reference  to 
the  educational,  civilizing,  and  enlightening  influences  these  objects 
exert,  but  I will  not  trespass  on  your  time  by  repeating  arguments  that 
must  naturally  occur  to  every  cultivated  mind. 

As  to  the  duties  on  books,  I respectfully  submit  that  our  present  law 
is  worthy  only  of  a barbarous  people.  Au  examination  of  Senate  doc- 
ument 1884,  report  551,  shows  that  every  country  in  the  world  admits 
foreign  books  free,  except  only  those  in  the  following  meager  and  not 
very  creditable  list : Spain  and  Mexico  levy  about  1 cent  per  pound  ; 
Guatemala,  10  per  cent.;  the  United  States , Toper  cent.  It  seems  the 
height  of  inconsistency  to  spend  millions  of  dollars  for  public  schools 
and  to  raise  a few  thousands  by  taxing  the  means  of  education.  Cer- 
tainly there  can  be  no  justification  in  erecting  barriers  against  foreign 
books  not  reprinted  in  this  country.  These,  at  least,  may  and  should  be 
made  free. 

One  needful  measure  of  reform  lies  in  the  power  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  without  the  action  of  Congress.  I refer  to  the  duties  on 
“books  by  mail.*  On  the  3d  of  April  last  I addressed  to  the  Hon. 
Mr.  Fairchild,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  a communication 
on  this  subject,  to  which  communication  1 beg  to  refer.  1 showed  that 
during  the  last  calendar  year  there  were  received  by  foreign  mail  at  the 
New  York  post-office  60,225  packages  estimated  to  contain  120,000 
books.  The  entire  amount  of  duties  collected  was  just  $10,497.15, 
being  an  average  of  only  17  cents  per  package,  or  8J  cents  per  volume. 
I estimated  aud  endeavored  to  show  that  the  salaries  of  officers,  sta- 
tionery, postage,  and  other  expenses  exceeded  the  entire  revenue  from 
this  source,  and  that  t'  e receivers  of  these  packages,  60,000  in  number, 
had  been  subjected  to  inconvenience  and  annoyance,  not  only  without 
profit  but  at  an  absolute  loss  to  the  Treasury. 

Formerly  no  duties  were  imposed  ou  such  importations  unless  the 
article  exceeded  $1  in  value,  but  in  1881  an  order  of  the  Treasury  De- 
partment directed  that  the  tax  should  be  collected  on  every  book  by 
mail,  however  insignificant  it  might  be.  To  undertake  the  gathering 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


469 


in  of  revenue  in  such  paltry  sums  is  too  trivial  a business  for  a great 
nation  to  engage  in.  And  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  tax  that  can 
cause  so  great  annoyance  to  so  many  persons  with  such  slender  results. 
This  collection  of  these  pennies  may  be  an  advantage  to  a bare  half- 
dozen  foreign  importers  of  books,  but  ten  thousand  citizens  are  made  to 
sutter  where  one  is  benefited  by  the  tax.  In  the  interest  of  education 
this  thing  should  be  reformed. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully  yours, 

CHARLES  B.  CURTIS. 


[Draft  of  a bill  to  make  works  of  art,  &c.,  free  of  duty-1 

Be  it  enacted,  <fc.,  That  the  following  articles,  when  imported  into  the  United  States, 
shall  be  free  of  duty,  viz  : pai:. tings,  drawings,  engravings,  photographs  of  works  f 
art,  statuary  [inse  t if  necessary  “ being  the  professional  productions  of  a sculptor”], 
medals,  coins,  or  minerals  for  cabinets;  casts  or  artistic  copies  of  statuary,  medals, 
coins,  or  minerals;  objects  of  collections  in  illustration  of  the  arts,  science,  or  manu- 
facture ; antique  objects,  manufactured  or  produced  more  than  fifty  years  before  the 
date  of  importation,  or  casts  or  artistic  copies  of  such  objects  of  collections  or  such 
antique  objects;  curios  or  objects  of  curiosity  or  taste. 

Memorandum. — I have  endeavored  to  estimate  the  loss  of  revenue  that 
such  a law  as  the  preceding  would  cause.  The  conclusion  I have  arrived 
at  is  that  the  total  amount  would  not  exceed  $250,000,  viz : 


Paintings  and  statuary,  duties  in  1884  $191,369 

Drawings,  average  of  the  past  15  years 56 

Engraviugs  (these  are  now  free  if  20  years  old),  say 50, 000 

Photographs  of  works  of  art,  say *2, 000 


Total 243, 425 


Cabinets  of  coins,  medals,  and  all  other  collections  of  antiquities, 
models  of  inventions,  specimens  of  natural  history,  botany,  and  miner- 
alogy, when  imported  for  cabinets  or  as  objects  of  taste  or  science  and 
not  for  sale,  are  now  free. 

All  the  rest  of  the  above  objects,  when  imported  for  any  religious, 
philosophical,  educational,  scientific,  or  art  society,  are  now  free , and 
have  been  so  since  the  act  of  April  27,  1816. 


[Rush  C.  Hawkins,  ivorks  of  art.  ] 

Tribune  Building, 

New  York , November  24,  1884. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : Since  the  first  Romans  went  to  Greece  and  carried  back 
with  them  to  their  own  country  some  of  the  great  works  of  art  pro- 
duced by  the  Athenian  masters,  the  civilized  peoples  of  Western  Europe 
have  been  in  active  competition  for  the  possession  of  the  productions  of 
noted  artists  with  which  to  enrich  their  museums  and  adorn  their  public 
edifices.  So  great  has  become  this  competition  that  the  finest  works  in 
each  department  bring  fabulous  prices,  and  Governments  now  contend 
with  each  other  and  with  families  of  the  greatest  wealth  for  the  posses- 
sion of  these  coveted  treasures. 

Several  Governments  have  gone  so  far  as  not  to  allow  any  works  of 
art  to  leave  their  respective  countries  without  the  written  permission 


470  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


of  a Government  inspector  of  fine  arts.  This  regulation  is  still  in  force 
in  Italy. 

The  majority  of  European  Governments  have  established,  and  now 
maintain,  under  national  control,  schools  for  teaching  the  arts,  and  in 
order  to  draw  the  young  men  from  other  countries  they  are  nearl3'  all 
practically  free. 

It  remained  for  the  superior  wisdom,  culture,  and  statesmanship  of 
the  law-makers  chosen  by  this  people  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  to  take  the  Pennsylvania  view  of  statues  and  paint- 
ings, which  places  them  on  the  same  level  with  pig-iron.  Nothing 
could  be  more  completely  and  fittingly  illustrative  of  our  barbarism 
than  this  act.  In  the  light,  or  rather  the  dark  of  it,  how  shallow  all 
of  our  pretensions  to  superior  intelligence  and  civilization  a pear. 

Three  years  ago  a fine  collection  of  oil  paintings,  containing  works 
of  several  of  the  most  famous  of  the  old  masters,  was  offered  (pri- 
vately) for  sale.  An  American  of  great  wealth  commenced  negotia- 
tions for  its  purchase,  which  were  in  progress  when  the  20  per  cent, 
additional  law  was  passed;  he  then  became  disgusted,  and  at  once 
ended  his  efforts  to  purchase.  This  collection,  although  intended  for 
immediate  private  use,  would  eventually  have  found  its  way  into  a 
public  gallery7.  I was  cognizant  of  this  whole  affair,  and  know  whereof 
I write. 

As  a mere  layman,  without  pretending  to  possess  the  wisdom  or  cult- 
ure of  the  average  Congressman,  my  voice  is  in  favor  of  no  protection 
for  works  of  art,  for  they  need  none.  There  is  nothing  in  the  way  of 
home  production  which  finds  so  ready  a sale  as  a really  meritorious  work 
of  art.  For  any  fine  example  produced  there  are  twenty  purchasers 
at  good  valuations,  while  the  mere  daubs  of  color  and  the  efforts  of  the 
ambitious  stone-cutter  often  encumber  the  lumber  rooms  of  their  pro- 
ducers. 

Rather  than  tax  foreign  art,  I would  instead  issue  a medal  to  any 
person  who  shall  bring  into  the  country  a notable  example  of  any  of 
the  masters,  either  of  the  ancient  or  modern  schools.  Why  should  not 
this  great  and  enormously  wealthy  nation  imitate,  at  least  in  this  one 
particular,  the  older  civilizations  of  Europe  ? I would  like  very  much 
to  hear  the  average  law-maker’s  negative  side  to  this  query. 

I most  sincerely  trust  that  you  will  do  all  you  can  to  relieve  this  peo- 
ple of  the  universal  odium  attached  to  them  on  account  of  the  passage 
of  this  absurd  and  unnecessary  measure. 

I have  the  honor  to  subscribe  myself,  your  humble  servant, 

RUSH  C.  HAWKINS. 


[William  Dean,  woolens .] 

Newark,  Del.,  December , 28,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir  : Herewith  I send  a review  of  the  circular  letter  and  pamphlet 
mailed  to  mq  by  William  Whitman,  president  of  the  National  Associa- 
tion of  Wool  Manufacturers,  asking  me  to  indorse  their  views,  and  then 
to  write  to  you  giving  my  indorsement  and  individual  views  on  the  sub- 
ject of  tariff  revision.  You  no  doubt  have  ere  this  received  many  re- 
plies as  requested  by  Mr.  Whitman.  I have  been  engaged  in  the  woolen 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


471 


manufacturing  business  for  over  half  a century  and  have  given  much 
thought  to  the  question  of  tariff  and  differ  much  with  many  of  my 
brother  woolen  manufacturers  on  this  subject.  My  review  will  give  the 
other  side  of  the  question  from  many  of  the  replies  you  will  receive. 

Kespectfully, 

WM.  DEAN. 


[An  open  letter  to  William  Whitman,  Esq.,  president  National  Association  of  Wool 

Manufacturers.  ] 

Newark,  Del.,  November,  23,  1885. 

Sir:  Yours  of  October  25  at  band,  which  says,  “ You  will  receive  by  this  mail  which 
carries  this  communication  a copy  of  a pamphlet  entitled,  ‘ The  woolen  tariff  defended 
and  explained  by  the  National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers, ’ in  response  to  a 
circular  of  the  Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  of  July  18,  1885. 
We  send  you  that  document  with  the  earnest  request  that  you  would  carefully  read 
and  consider  it,  in  the  hope  that  we  may  have  your  active  and  personal  co-operation 
in  the  object  for  which  it  was  written,  viz,  preserving  the  foundation  rock  of  our 
prosperity  as  wool  manufacturers,  the  present  woolen  tariff.” 

Now  I have  done  exactly  what  you  have  asked  me  to  do,  “ carefully  read  and  con- 
sidered it,”  and,  having  done  so,  have  to  say  I cannot  co-operate  with  you  in  the  ob- 
ject you  desire  to  accomplish,  for  reasons  which  I shall  give.  Your  pamphlet  says  it 
takes  (and  I am  satisfied  you  are  correct)  4 pounds  of  wool  in  the  dirt  to  make  1 pound 
of  cloth,  and  therefore,  on  page  21,  you  plainly  show  that  the  American  woolen  manu- 
facturer should  have  a specific  duty  equal  to  46.75  cents  per  pound  on  cloth  to  put 
him  on  a level  with  the  foreign  manufacturer  at  the  outstart.  Then  you  think  that 
in  addition  to  the  specific  duty  our  manufacturers  require  a 35  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
duty  to  protect  the  American  workingman  against  the  poor  paid  pauper  labor  of 
Europe.  These  seem  to  be  the  reasons  urged  why  no  alteration  should  be  made  in 
the  existing  tariff  laws.  The  specific  duty,  it  is  claimed,  is  to  protect  the  Ameri- 
can wool  grower.  Now,  let  me  ask  the  question,  why  one  farmer  in  a community 
of  a dozen  farmers  should  ask  to  have  his  particular  production  protected  with- 
out the  other  eleven  being  equally  well  protected  on  their  different  products? 
One  may  be  engaged  in  raising  cereals,  another  beef  cattle,  another  hogs,  another 
in  the  dairy  business,  another  cotton,  another  fruit.  Under  a just  government 
are  not  each  and  every  one  entitled  to  an  equal  amount  of  protection  ? If  so,  and 
every  interest  in  our  country  is  equally  protected,  do  any  of  them  have  protec- 
tion? Now,  let  me  ask  why  the  wool  grower  as  a right  asks  for  protection?  Has 
he  not  the  same  fertile  soil,  the  same  sunshine,  rain,  and  all  the  natural  elements  and 
advantages  that  his  fellow  farmers  engaged  in  raising  cereals,  beef,  hogs,  cotton,  to- 
bacco, fruit,  or  dairying?  If  he  has  all  the  above,  why  does  he  ask  to  be  protected, 
except  from  a selfish  standpoint,  if  he  is  their  equal  in  intelligence  and  industry? 
When  he  asks  to  be  protected  does  he  not  admit  at  once  that  he  is  not  the  equal  of 
some  other  fellow  engaged  in  wool  growing  in  some  other  country?  He  cannot  claim 
that  he  has  not  as  cheap  and  as  fertile  soil  as  any  country  in  the  world.  I visited  a 
farmer  in  Cheshire,  England,  where  land  rented  at  from  two  to  seven  pouuds  sterling 
per  acre,  and  I found  him  with  two  years’  crop  of  w ool  on  hand,  as  clean  as  any 
washed  wool  sold  in  this  country,  and  he  told  me  he  would  be  perfectly  willing  to 
sell  it  at  9 pence  per  pound  in  July  of  1881.  Will  any  American  wool-grower  acknowl- 
edge that  he  is  not  the  equal  of  his  English  cousin  f When  the  present  tariff  on  wool 
was  enacted  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  clothing- w ool  producers  and  for 
the  purpose  of  encouraging  them  to  increase  their  production  of  those  w ools,  winch  at 
that  time  were  mostly  grown  in  the  States  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  Has  it 
encouraged  and  increased  the  product  in  the  locality  referred  to  ? About  the  year 
1877  I attended  an  agricultural  congress  held  in  the  city  of  Washington,  when  the 
president  and  secretary  of  the  National  Wool  Growlers’  Association  were  present,  and 
they  were  advocating  protection  for  the  wool  grower.  Mr.  Dodge,  the  government 
stastitician,  was  present,  and  the  question  was  put  to  him  : How  much  has  the  wool 
product  of  the  older  States  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  increased  since  the  enact- 
ment of  the  then  existing  tariff  of  1867?  His  reply  was  prompt ; that  since  the  en- 
actment of  the  then  existing  tariff  the  product  of  clothing  wools  in  the  locality  re- 
ferred to  had  not  increased,  but  had  largely  decreased,  and  he  gave  the  figures ; but  I 
do  not  now  recollect  them.  If  the  law  has  failed  to  do  what  it  was  intended  to  do, 
why  should  it  longer  exist,  except  on  the  principle  laid  down  in  your  pamphlet  on 
page  26,  which  says : “The  present  system  is  recommended  by  the  highest  legislative 
authorities,  by  the  endorsement  of  the  revenue  commission  of  1866,  by  the  final  judg- 
ment, after  full  discussion,  of  the  tariff  commission  of  1882,  by  the  adoption  of  the 


472  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


system  directly  from  our  own  by  the  Dominion  of  Canada  in  a recent  revision  of  its 
tariff;  and,  finally,  by  the  practical  manufacturers  themselves,  who  ought  to  be  the  best 
judges  of  their  own  interests .”  Now,  this  last  part  of  the  paragraph  puts  the  whole 
thing  in  a nutshell:  “Who  ought  to  be  the  best  judges  of  their  own  interests.”  This 
quotation  is  the  foundation  upon  which  all  tariff  laws  are  erected.  Is  it  not,  to  say 
the  least  of  it,  a very  selfish  principle  ¥ I have  seen  the  same  principle  illustrated 
when  a boy.  While  out  with  a lot  of  other  boys  after  apples,  chestnuts,  or  many 
other  things  which  boys  arc  apt  to  go  for  on  the  principle  that  they  have  a right  to 
them,  while  at  the  same  time  some  farmer  has  bought  and  paid  for  the  land  upon 
which  the  things  grew,  but  the  man  was  not  there  to  protect  his  property,  so  it  passed 
out  of  his  hands  into  those  of  the  boys,  and  I have  seen  disputes  among  the  boys, 
some  boys  would  be  more  active  and  energetic  and  get  much  the  largest  share  on  ac- 
count of  the  industry  of  the  individual,  while  th«  laggard  would  complain  of  his  in- 
ability to  keep  up;  he  wanted  a divide,  or,  in  other  words,  he  wanted  to  be  protected 
against  superior  ability  and  activity.  And  this  is  just  what  your  pamphlet  acknowl- 
edges that  the  “National  Association  of  Woolen  Manufacturers”  have  done;  they 
admit  that  without  the  present  protection,  40  cents  a pound  on  the  manufactured 
cloth,  specific  to  protect  the  wool-growers,  and  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  they  cannot 
compete  with  their  English  cousin  engaged  in  the  same  line  of  business.  It  is  plain  to 
me,  as  i t has  been  expressed  in  your  paihplilet,  that  the  duty  on  woolhandicapsthe  Amer- 
ican  woolen  manufacturers ; therefore,  being  as  you  say  the  best  judges  of  their  own  in- 
t erests,  why  not  carry  out  the  principle  to  the  end  and  say,  we  are  opposed  to  any  duty 
on  wool,  and  ask  for  its  abolishment  ¥ Act  consistently,  and  do  what  your  own  in- 
telligence tells  you  to  be  right.  Now,  there  is  another  thing  which  I have  noticed 
for  some  months  back,  and  that  is,  that  from  one  to  three  thousand  cases  of  manu- 
factured cotton  goods  have  been  shipped  weekly  to  the  ports  of  London,  Liverpool, 
and  Glasgow.  How  is  it  that  the  American  cotton  manufacturer  can  export  his  prod- 
ucts to  an  English  market  and  sell  at  a profit  ¥ and  they  must  do  it  or  they  would 
quit  sending  them.  Does  not  this  same  American  cot  ton  manufacturer  have  to  compete 
iu  the  same  American  labor  market  from  which  the  American  woolen  manufacturer 
has  to  get  his  supply  of  labor,  and  also  the  American  farmer  has  to  get  his  labor 
with  which  he  has  to  raise  his  wheat,  corn,  tobacco,  pork,  beef,  dairy  products,  and 
export  them  to  a foreign  market,  and  sell  in  competition  with  the  half-civilized  labor 
of  the  Eastern  world  or  the  pauper  labor  of  Europe,  even  the  serf  labor  of  Russia, 
which,  although  not  serfs  to-day,  I am  told,  are  not  much  better  off  ¥ When  the 
American  cotton  manufacturer  can  sell  his  products  in  the  English  markets  in  com- 
petition with  the  English  pauper  labor,  and  pay  the  high  American  price  for  labor  to 
produce  his  products,  does  he  want  any  protection  ¥ Suppose,  for  illustration,  that  the 
American  woolen  manufacturer  could  go  into  the  cheapest  wool  markets  of  the  world, 
just  the  same  as  the  American  cotton  manufacturer  gets  his  cotton  as  cheap  as  any  man- 
ufacturer, could  not  the  American  woolen  manufacturer  produce  equally  cheap  woolen 
goods  ¥ If  not,  will  you  please  give  me  the  reason  why  f Now  let  us  take  the  specific 
duty  on  wool  which  you  say  must  be  added  to  the  price  of  American  woolen  goods  to 
overcome  the  specific  duty  now  collected  on  wool.  We  will  put  it  at  40  cents,  while 
the  pamphlet  says  it  will  require  46£  cents  per  pound  to  put  the  American  manufact- 
urer on  an  equal  footing  with  the  European  manufacturer.  The  census  report  of  1880 
puts  the  woolen  product  of  our  country  at  something  over  $200,000,000  per  annum. 
While  present  at  a banquet  given  by  the  National  Association  of  Woolen  Manufact- 
urers some  few  years  back  at  the  Continental  Hotel  in  Philadelphia,  the  president  of 
the  association  in  giving  an  account  of  the  woolen  manufacturing  interests  of  Amer- 
ica said  the  jiroducts  per  annum  at  that  time  were  about  $293,000,000.  Now,  let  us 
take  the  census  report  and  say  it  is  correct  of  $200,000,000,  and  say  the  manufactured 
goods  cost  $1.50  per  pound  (which  is  a very  high  averago  of  American  manufactured 
wooleus),  it  would  make  about  134,000,000  pounds,  and  add  to  it  the  specific  duty  of 
40  cents  per  pound.  This  will  add  to  the  cost  of  tlio  American  woolen  goods  product 
about  $54,000,000.  In  addition  to  this  we  import  annually,  say,  $50,000,000  worth  of 
wool  and  woolens,  the  duties  on  which,  at  an  average  of  say  75  per  cent.,  would  be 
$37,500,000.  The  pamphlet  claims  that  the  woolen  manufacturer  is  entitled  to  an  ad- 
valorem  duty  of  35  per  cent,  to  overcome  the  cheap  pauper  labor  put  into  the  manufact- 
ure of  woolen  goods  iu  Europe.  Now,  this  ad  valorem  duty  will  add  to  the  selling 
price  of  the  $200,000,000  worth  of  American  manufactured  wooleusanother  $50,000,000. 
If  we  take  the  $54,000,000  of  specific  duty  added  to  tho  woolen  goo  Is  product  of  Amer- 
ica and  say  two-thirds  of  the  duties  collected  ou  imported  wools  and  woolens,  we  will 
find  what  it  costs  the  American  consumers  of  woolen  goods  to  protect  the  handful  of  per- 
sons cal  led  wool  growers.  The  two  items  will  amount  to  about  $95,000,000,  or  very  nearly 
$2  each  for  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  tho  United  States  iu  1880.  Now,  when  yon 
add  the  ad  valorem  duty  or  what  it  adds  to  the  cost  of  all  woolen  goods  consumed  in 
the  United  States  it  will  make  another  $70,000,000,  or  when  all  the  exactions  that  are 
taken  from  the  consumers  of  woolens  in  the  United  States,  over  $150,000,000,  or  about 
$3  each  for  every  individual  in  our  country.  Now,  there  are  engaged  in  the  woolen 


REVISION  OP  THE  TARIFF. 


473 


and  worsted  interests  of  the  United  States  about  120,000  persons  of  all  ages  and 
sexes  ; these,  along  with  a probably  much  less  number  of  persons  called  wool-growers, 
are  those  who  extract  from  the  pockets  of  the  9,000,000  farmers  and  the  many  other 
millions  of  tradesmen,  workingmen,  professional  men,’ and  men  engaged  in  trans- 
portation who  go  to  make  the  grand  aggregate  of  the  American  people,  who  are 
taxed  as  above  to  protect  less  than  a quarter  of  a million  people  engaged  in  wool- 
growing and  woolen  manufacturing.  How  long  would  the  American  citizen  stand 
such  a tax  for  such  a purpose  were  it  a direct  tax?  And  yet  they  just  as  surely  pay 
it  as  though  the  tax-gatherer  came  around  and  collected  it  directly.  Your  circular 
letter  says:  “The  object  for  which  the  pamphlet  was  written,  viz,  preserving  the 
foundation  rock  of  our  prosperity  as  wool  manufacturers,  the  present  woolen  tariff.” 
If  it  is  the  foundation  rock  it  must  be  a very  slippery  one.  and  we  as  woolen  manufact- 
urers occasionally  get  off  the  rock  and  out  into  deep  water,  and  some  occasionally  get 
drowned  and  the  great  mass  at  times  make  very  narrow  escapes.  Let  any  person 
running  a Woolen  mill  from  1373  to  1877,  ask  himself  why  it  was  during  that  time  that 
at  least  one-third  of  the  woolen  machinery  of  the  country  was  idle,  and  it  was 
the  same  with  every  other  interest  at  that  time.  It  was  said  that  there  was  a 
million  of  men  tramping  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other,  willing  to  work, 
but  could  find  none  to  do.  Where  was  the  rock  foundation  at  that  time  ? Let  us  look 
at  a later  date,  from  1883  to  1885.  Have  we  not  witnessed  a similar  state  of  things? 
What  had  become  of  the  rock  of  prosperity  at  this  time  ? Why  were  so  many  woolen 
mills  idle?  Why  was  the  woolen  mill  bought  by  Mr.  Ayres  in  Massachusetts  for 
$2*25, fOO,  which  was  said  to  have  cost  over  a million  of  dollars;  what  had  become  *f 
i s capital?  That  mill  must  certainly  have  gotten  off  the  foundation  rock  of  pros- 
perity. Now,  I am  free  to  say  that  I believe  free  trade js  the  best  for  all  persons  and 
interests  in  our  country,  because  it  puts  every  interest  upon  an  equality,  which  always 
should  be  the  case  in  a country  where  it  is  claimed  that  each  aud  every  individual 
has  equal  rights.  This  is  what  we  claim  for  our  Government.  Yet  how  false  it  is  ; 
for  our  Government  has  enacted  laws  which  will  not  allow  yon  to  purchase  any 
article  you  may  need  for  your  welfare  where  you  can  find  it  sold  for  the  least  amount 
of  money  without  paying  to  the  General  Government  a tax  for  the  privilege  of  doing 
so.  Allow  me  to  illustrate.  There  is  no  American  citizen  who  has  had  the  benefit  of 
a common-school  education  but  knows  that  we  raise  more  wheat,  corn,  pork,  beef, 
lard,  and  cotton  than  we  can  consume  at  home,  and  that  we  have  a large  surplus  for 
export  to  find  a market  in  foreign  countries,  and  the  articles  thus  exported  havo  to 
be  sold  in  those  countries  in  competition  with  the  cheapest  like  products  of  the  world. 
These  persons  engaged  in  agriculture  have  no  foundation  rock  of  prosperity  to  stand 
upon.  They  nevertheless  are  large  producers  of  wealth.  They  make  up  the  articles 
of  export  which  help  to  pay  for  those  foreign  products  which  add  to  our  comfort  and 
prosperity,  and  whichare  essential  to  our  av el  fare,  andthey  are  not  mean  or  insignificant 
in  numbers  and  amounts.  The  duty  of  40  cents  a pound  on  American  manufactured 
woolens  which  they  consumo  does  not  add  a half  cent  to  a single  bushel  of  their  wheat 
or  to  the  pound  of  pork,  beef,  lard,  cotton,  or  any  other  of  their  products.  At  times  a 
farmer  may  choose  to  take  a season’s  product  and  cross  the  briny  deep  with  it  to  find  a 
market  for  it,  and  when  it  is  sold  he  sees  woolen  goods  selling  cheaper  than  he  ever 
saw  them  selling  for  at  home,  and  he  concludes  to  invest  some  of  the  cash  he  has  re- 
ceived for  his  wheat  or  other  product  in  woolen  goods,  and  when  he  arri\Tes  at  the 
shores  of  free  America  he  is  met  by  a.  customs  officer,  who  at  once  puts  him  on  oath  to 
know  what  he  has  got — if  anything  that  is  subject  to  a customs  duty.  He  produces 
his  woolen  cloth,  and  is  told  that  he  must  pay  40  cents  per  pound  specific  and  35  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  duty.  His  eyes  are>at  once  opened,  and  he  says,  Why  that  is  more 
than  what  I paid  for  the  stuff  when  I bought  it.  But  he  has  it  to  pay.  There  is 
no  getting  out  of  it  unless  he  can  bribe  the  customs  officer;  but  farmers  have  so 
little  to  do  with  these  persons  that  he  knows  nothing  about  it.  It  takes  million- 
aires engaged  in  woolen  manufacturing  (and  I will  not  say  that  some  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  National  Association  of  Woolen  Manufacturers  would  do  it),  who  can  take 
a hand  *n  importing  wool  said  to  cost  less  than  12  cents  per  pound  on  the  other  side 
and  get  it  in  at  low  duty  of  2|  cents,  when  at  the  same  time  it  is  well  known  to  the 
individuals,  as  well  as  to  the  customs  officers,  that  if  the  laws  are  faithfully  executed 
and  the  invoices  truthfully  sworn  it  would  have  had  to  pay  a duty  of  5 cents  per 
pound.  Honesty  cannot  compete  with  such  operations.  A man  may  be  engaged  in 
running  a mill  making  men’s  worsted  wear,  and  may  stop  all  his  looms  and  buy 
worsted  goods  in  England,  and  bring  them  into  our  ports  in  the  grease  and  gray  to 
be  finished  and  dyed  in  an  American  mill.  The  customs  officers  are  not  supposed  to 
know  the  value  of  such  goods,  and  they  are  brought  in  at  far  below  their  true 
value.  This  foundation  rock  of  prosperity  has  a great  tendency  to  make  our 
people  dishonest,  to  swear  falsely,  and  to  tempt  them  to  bribe  our  sworn  and 
faithful  customs  officers.  Of  course  no  one  who  is  an  advocate  for  preserving 
this  foundation  rock  of  prosperity  would  be  guilty  Of  doing  anything  to  cheat  the 
Government  by  not  paying  the  proper  duties  ? It  is  only  the  farmer  who  has  just  found 


474  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


out  bow  badly  be  bas  been  swindled  that  would  undertake  to  do  such  things.  Tbe 
interests  tbat  are  fostered  and  raised  on  this  foundation  rock  of  prosperity  system  are 
simply  bot-bed  plants,  and  when  such  financial  frosts  as  have  been  experienced  in 
tbe  times  referred  to,  from  1873  to  1877  and  from  1883  to  1885,  strike  them,  it  freezes 
some  beyond  recovery,  and  others  take  much  nursing  to  bring  them  around.  As  we 
have  been  operating  under  tbe  protective  system  for  the  last  twenty  years,  it  would 
not  do  to  make  any  sudden  or  radical  changes ; yet  we  can  by  a judicious  and  wise 
enactment  come  to  it  by  a slight  and  gradual  reduction  of  duties  without  creating 
any  sudden  revulsion  in  any  department  of  trade,  and  when  we  get  down  to  that 
point  where  we  could  supply  our  own  people  as  cheaply  as  they  could  buy  in  any  other 
market  of  the  world,  then  if  we  got  our  own  market  overstocked  we  could  send  to 
any  market  of  the  world  a portion  of  our  surplus  and  relieve  our  own  market.  Why 
is  it  that  we  are  not  able  to  supply  our  Mexican  neighbors  with  woolen  goods  just  as 
cheap  as  England  or  any  other  country  ? Why,  the  pamphlet  has  told  you  in  as  clear 
and  plain  language  as  it  is  possible  to  find,  we  have  to  buy  our  wool  at  40  cents  per 
clean  pound  over  and  above  what  any  other  country  has  to  pay.  Under  such  circum- 
stances how  can  we  compete  in  any  market  but  our  own  when  the  Government  forces 
the  consumers  of  woolen  goods  to  pay  two  prices  for  them  ? While  we  are  exporting 
cotton  goods  by  the  tens  of  millions  of  dollars’  worth  annually  our  woolen  goods  ex- 
ported are  counted  by  a few  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  per  annum.  I have  oft- 
en thought  the  matter  over  about  this  combined  action  taken  by  large  monied  in- 
terests to  get  Congressional  action  taken  in  favor  of  some  special  interest ; it  always 
looked  to  me  to  be  all  wrong.  What  do  we  elect  Senators  and  Representatives  for? 
My  idea  was  that  we  selected  them  for  their  several  positions  for  the  reason  that  they 
had  made  a study  of  the  duties  they  were  about  to  assume.  If  we  have  exercised  the 
rights  of  treemen  rightly,  and  sent  the  right  men  to  represent  us,  why  is  it  necessary 
to  spend  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  each  session  of  Congress  to  keep  a paid 
lobby  to  operate  on  our  Representatives  ? It  has  often  been  a question  that  I was  not 
fully  able  to  satisfy  myself  upon,  whether  the  enlightenment  that  our  Congressmen 
receive  from  lobbyists  was  received  through  the  brain  or  the  pocket  ? I may  be 
accused  of  following  out  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  pamphlet,  that  manufact- 
urers ought  to  be  the  best  judges  of  their  own  interests.  I have  said  nothing  about 
the  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  on  woolen  goods,  which,  if  it  were  just  before 
a Presidential  election  would  be  sung  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other  that 
it  was  for  the  benefit  of  the  American  workingman,  because  they  are  an  important 
factor  about  those  times.  But  at  the  present  time  it  is  for  the  protection  of  the  man- 
ufacturer against  the  cheap  pauper  labor  of  Europe,  and  to  enable  them  to  pay  tbe 
present  high  wages  of  this  country.  Now,  all  the  wages  paid  in  this  country  at  this 
time  in  the  manufacture  of  woolen  goods  selling  at  $1.50  per  yard  will  not  amount  to 
over  30  cents  per  yard,  or  20  per  cent. ; now  this  is  the  entire  proportion  of  cost  of 
labor  to  make  goods  selling  for  the  above  price.  I question  very  much  if  it  will  not 
cover  the  cost  of  labor  in  the  highest  paid  mill  in  the  country.  I have  given  my  in- 
dividual opinion  that  free  trade  was  for  the  best  interests  of  all  the  people  of  our 
country,  and  for  that  reason  I am  satisfied  to  let  Congress,  who  are  elected  to  act  for 
the  best  interests  of  the  country,  do  what  seems  to  them  best  without  the  influence 
of  a paid  lobby  to  bring  any  undue  influence  to  bear  on  our  representatives.  It  is 
the  busiuess  of  Congress  to  regulate  all  such  matters  in  their  own  way.  I shall  ac- 
commodate myself  to  the  situation,  let  it  be  what  it  may.  In  the  year  1881  there  was 
manufactured  in  this  country  1,100,000  tons  of  steel  rails,  and  there  was  imported 
about  100,000  tons  more,  and  all  was  sold  at  an  average  price  of  $61  per  ton,  and  at 
that  time  there  was  a duty  of  more  per  ton  than  what  American  steel  rails  have  been 
contracted  to  be  sold  for  since  that  time.  The  railroads  built  that  year  in  this  coun- 
try paid  forty  millions  of  dollars  more  than  what  they  would  have  had  to  pay  for 
them  had  it  not  been  for  the  then  high  rate  of  duty  paid.  The  railroad  companies 
who  bought  the  high-priced  rails  will  try  to  make  their  patrons  pay  the  interest  on 
that  amount  as  long  as  they  possibly  can,  and  our  farmers  who  carry  their  grain 
and  other  products  thousands  of  miles  to  an  Atlantic  seaport  will  get  that  much 
less  for  their  products.  All  the  high  rates  of  duties  tend  to  make  high  prices 
for  our  home-manufactured  products,  which  are  protected,  and  cause  the  farmer 
to  be  placed  at  a disadvantage  in  every  instance.  The  protected  industries  go 
into  the  labor  market  and  select  the  best,  and  that  puts  up  the  price  of  labor 
on  the  farmers.  Now,  if  manufacturers  cannot  make  a living  without  putting 
their  hands  in  other  people’s  pockets  and  taking  that  which  they  have  no  just 
right  to,  only  the  right  obtained  through  Congress  by  some  pressure  brought  to 
bear  upon  them  by  interested  parties,  just  as  the  National  Association  of  Woolen  Manu- 
facturers are  proposing  now  to  do  by  the  issuing  their  circular  and  pamphlet,  then 
they  are  paupers  and  should  be  kept  in  the  almshouse.  The  leading  men  of  the  two 
great  parties  of  our  country,  at  their  late  national  conventions,  both  expressed  them- 
selves upon  the  subject  of  the  tariff,  and  the  expression  of  both  lead  to  a reduced  rate 
of  duties.  Now,  what  has  influenced  these  conventions  to  thus  express  themselves? 
Only  that  public  opinion  is  forcing  them  to  thus  act.  -‘tTlie  Democratic  party,  through 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


475 


its  convention  which  nominated  Grover  Cleveland  for  the  Presidency,  declared  that 
the  Democratic  party  is  pledged  to  revise  the  tariff,”  “ and  the  Republican  party, 
through  its  convention  which  nominated  the  Hon.  James  G.  Blaine  for  President,  de- 
clared that  the  Republican  party  pledges  itself  to  correct  the  inequalities  of  the  tariff 
and  to  reduce  the  surplus.”  Now,  when  the  leading  statesmen  of  our  country  and  of 
both  political  parties  can  thus  so  nearly  agree  upon  a measure  as  they  have  doue  on  the 
tariff  question  as  above  quoted,  it  is  hardly  worth  while  for  the  National  Association 
of  Woolen  Manufacturers  to  set  themselves  up  against  such  public  sentiment  so  fully 
expressed,  unless  they  think  they  can  raise  a purse  sufficient  to  buy  a sufficient  num- 
ber of  members  of  Congress  and  Senators  to  do  what  they,  the  woolen  manufact- 
urers, want  done.  It  strikes  me  that  the  American  people  are  beginning  to  think,  and 
whenever  the  mass  of  them  do  think,  then  all  such  unjust  enactments  as  our  present 
tariff  laws  will  be  wiped  off  our  statute  books.  A single  instance  that  has  come  to 
my  notice  showing  that  the  workingmen  are  beginning  to  think.  Let  me  quote  a 
letter  which  I received  to-day  from  a person  that  I do  not  know  that  I ever  saw: 

a Wilmington,  Del.,  November  23,  1885. 

“ Hon.  William  Dean,  Newark,  Del.: 

“ Dear  Sir  : You  will  pardon  my  intrusion  when  you  understand  my  mission.  At  one 
time  I loudly  tooted  the  tariff  horn ; latterly  I have  begun  to  think  it’s  not  what  it  is 
preached  to  be,  and  desiring  enlightment,  I would  ask  if  I could  have  an  audience 
with  you.  Saturday  and  Sunday  being  my  only  leisure  time,  I being  one  of  those 
blessedly  protected  fellows,  an  ‘Iron  Roller,’  and  the  workingman  of  all  others 
should  be  informed,  as  he  suffers  more  than  others  in  result  of  bad  laws  * * * 

having  heard  you  make  a speech  at  one  time,  I felt  that  you  were  a man  free  and  open 
and  easily  approached. 

“Yours,  respectfully,  &c. 

When  workingmen  begin  like  this  one,  the  contagion  spreads.  * * * * Your 

pamphlet,  speaking  of  the  tariff  revision  of  1883,  says,  on  page  5,  “that  legislation 
was  not  the  pledge  of  a party,  but  of  the  nation.  It  was  a treaty  with  the  national 
industries,  and,  like  a treaty  with  a foreign  power,  should  be  respected  even  by  those 
who  do  not  approve  it.”  Now,  I did  suppose  that  the  men  who  composed  the  National 
Association  of  Woolen  Manufacturers  certainly  knew  the  difference  between  an  act 
of  Congress  and  a treaty.  There  is  no  act  of  Congress  that  is  passed  but  what  can 
be  repealed  either  by  itself  or  a succeeding  Congress.  The  passage  of  the  tariff  of 
1883  was  not  a unanimous  act  of  the  two  houses  of  Congress,  and  the  men  who  opposed 
it  then,  no  doubt,  are  still  of  the  same  opinion  they  were  at  that  time.  There  is  noth- 
ing done  by  the  Congress  of  1883  that  is  binding  on  the  Congress  of  1885  and  1886,  and 
public  sentiment  has  undergone  a great  change  on  the  tariff  question  since  that  time, 
or  else  the  expression  given  out  by  the  two  great  political  parties  through  their  national 
conventions,  which  nominated  their  respective  candidates  for  president  and  vice-presi- 
dent, did  not  mean  anything.  I cannot  believe  that  the  able  men  of  both  parties,  clothed 
with  such  an  important  mission,  would  so  belittle  themselves  as  to  put  forth  the  lan- 
guage which  I have  quoted  from  them  on  the  tariff  if  they  did  not  honestly  think  it  was 
for  the  best  interests  of  the  country.  It  strikes  me  that  the  National  Association  of 
Woolen  Manufacturers  have  seen  the  handwriting  on  the  wall  which  tells  them  that 
in  the  future  they  will  have  to  hew  to  the  line  as  well  as  farmers  and  other  unpro- 
tected industries.  The  cotton  manufacturers  give  us  cotton  goods  as  cheap  as  they 
can  be  bought  in  the  world.  Were  it  not  so  they  could  not  be  sending  millions  of  dol- 
lars’ worth  to  the  English  market — a country  which  is  represented  as  the  best  and 
cheapest  cotton-cloth  producer  in  the  world.  * * * * Why  should  men  who  can 
do  this  be  obliged  to  pay  two  prices  for  woolen  goods,  simply  to  allow  a quarter  of 
a million  persons  called  wool-growers  and  woolen  manufacturers  to  be  protected? 
Are  men  in  a business  who  cannot  make  a living  out  of  it  without  taxing  other  inter- 
ests to  do  it  anything  but  paupers  ? * * * * On  page  7 of  your  pamphlet  you  say 
reducing  the  duties  will  not  reduce  the  revenue.  Suppose  you  take  all  the  duties  off 
cotton  goods,  do  you  think  it  would  stop  our  cotton  manufacturers  from  sending  their 
goods  to  England  ? If  not,  then  our  revenue  would  not  be  affected  by  that.  I saw  a 
notice  within  a few  days  that  some  400  tons  of  Alabama  iron  had  been  bought  by  an 
English  iron  manufacturer  and  shipped  to  England ; while  this  is  the  case  Alabama  iron 
manufacturers  will  not  want  a duty  to  protect  them.  I should  not  be  at  all  surprised 
to  see  a Pennsylvania  iron  association  soon  acting  like  the  National  Association  of 
Woolen  Manufacturers,  appealing  to  Congress  not  only  not  to  have  any  revision  of  the 
duties  on  foreign  iron  changed,  but  to  enact  a law  prohibiting  Alabama  sending  any 
of  her  iron  to  any  of  the  Pennsylvania  iron  manufacturers’  customers.  One  thing  that 
troubles  the  National  Association  of  Woolen  Manufacturers,  “it  disturbs  the  rela- 
tions of  the  industries  to  each  other.’’  There  is  no  doubt  but  what  if  you  could  get  a 
fair,  honest  expression  of  the  farmers  and  all  other  consumers  of  American  manufact- 
ured woolens,  so  that  they  could  get  the  40  cents  per  pound  taken  off  the  prices  they 
have  to  now  pay  for  them,  which  the  pamphlet  plainly  tells  us  they  are  now  paying, 


476  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


I think  they  wonld  b©  only  too  happy  to  have  a disturbance  of  that  kind  of  relations 
of  industry.  On  page  8 the  pamphlet  says:  “This  lesson  of  her  wise  statesman 
England  has  never  forgotten,  while  our  own  country  has  perpetually  vacillated 
in  her  tariff  laws.”  England  having  many  long  years  ago  found  out  that  the  nearer 
free  trade  they  could  get  the  better  it  was  for  them,  having  approached  very  near 
that  point,  and  found  it  to  be  the  best  system  for  them,  they  do  not  care  to  make 
any  moves  backward  ; it  makes  no  difference  to  them  which  party,  whether  Liber- 
als or  Conservatives,  are  in  power,  none  want  to  go  back  to  a protective  system  of 
duties  on  imports.  “Evil  of  apprehension*,”  page  9.  This  reminds  me  of  the  boy 
who  had  a long  journey  through  a wood.  He  was  not  at  all  scared,  yet  at  the  same 
time  he  did  the  liveliest  kind  of  a whistling  to  keep  up  his  courage.  And  just  so 
with  the  woolen  manufacturers;  they  are  not  afraid  for  themselves,  but  are  appre- 
hensive for  the  welfare  of  the  country  at  large  and  for  fear  that  Congress  will  do 
something,  they  are  keeping  up  a terrible  howling ; they  are  not  afraid,  and  do  not 
show  any  fear,  yet  at  the  same  time,  should  Congress  in  its  wisdom  see  fit  to  do 
something  in  the  way  of  a revision  of  the  tariff,  these  wise  manufacturers  have  taken 
the  matter  by  the  forelock,  and  laid  down  a system  for  it  to  act  by,  on  page  112  : 
“The  American  manufacturer  is  engaged  in  a perpetual  struggle  with  the  manufact- 
urer of  Europe  for  the  possession  of  the  markets  of  this  country.  As  before  said,  the 
advantages  of  our  competitors  are  our  obstacles.  In  this  strife  the  European  manu- 
facturer possesses  the  advantage,  which  would  be  overwhelming  if  not  counteracted  by 
special  legislation,  of  having  the  raw  material  of  his  manufacture  free  from  duty, 
no  duties  on  wool  existing  in  Great  Britain,  France,  Belgium,  and  Netherlands,  and 
verj'  slight  duties,  if  any,  in  other  manulacturing  nations.”  Now,  if  free  wool  is  such 
a boon  to  woolen  manufacturers  of  the  nations  referred  to,  let  our  National  Associa- 
tion of  Woolen  Manufacturers  come  square  out  and  say,  we  want  to  be  put  upon  an 
equal  footing  with  other  manufacturing  nations;  we  want  free  wool.  If  our  wool- 
growers,  who  have  all  the  advantages  of  other  persons  engaged  in  agriculture,  cannot 
make  a living  only  by  taxing  every  individual  man,  woman,  and  child  in  America 
$3  a piece,  I for  one  say  let  them  “git  up  and  git”  for  the  almshouse,  the  place  where 
they  belong.  Do  not  be  beating  around  the  bush ; say  you  want  and  will  have  tree 
wool — that  is  what  you  all  mean,  but  have  not  the  manliness  to  come  out  and  admit 
it.  * * * Congressmen  are  Americans,  men  from  amongst  us,  with  similar  feel- 

ings and  interests  with  ourselves  ; why  be  afraid  to  trust  them  ? Is  it  that  you  have 
seen  or  taken  a hand  in  bribing  Congressmen  heretofore  that  so  alarms  you  of  their 
coming  action  ? Ido  not  believe  that  taking  the  duty  off  wool  will  force  all  the 
wool-growers  to  kill  their  sheep.  I have  seen  a time  when  the  duty  on  wool  was 
but  a small  fraction  of  what  it  is  to  day,  and  yet  I saw  wool  bring  a much  higher 
price  than  it  is  selling  for  to  day.  Suppose  the  duty  was  taken  off  wool,  what 
would  likely  be  the  result?  Why,  every  manufacturer  would  be  sending  to  London 
or  Liverpool  for  wool,  and  as  the  manufacturers  of  other  countries  have  heretoloie 
taken  all  the  wool  that  came  to  those  markets,  and  a few  hundred  buyers  from  Amer- 
ica began  to  compete  for  some  of  the  wool,  would  it  be  likely  under  such  circum- 
stances to  go  down  in  price  ? I think  the  opposite  would  be  the  result;  the  extra 
competition  of  buyers  would  soon  create  a boom  in  those  markets,  and  our  manufact- 
urers would  soon  return  to  our  own  market,  for  the  reason  ihat  foreign  wool  had 
gone  up  some  and  ours  had  come  down  some,  and  the  result  would  be  an  equaliza- 
tion of  prices  and  all  would  be  benefited  thereby,  for  I do  believe  that  the  American 
woolen  manufacturer,  when  he  is  put  to  his  own  resources,  is  the  equal  of  any  other, 
and  he  would  then  bo  able  to  supply  Mexico  and  Central  and  South  America  with 
woolen  goods,  and  be  able  to  meet  competition  in  any  market  in  the  world.  What 
has  made  the  manufacture  of  watches  a success  iu  America?  Just  the  same  thing 
that  has  made  American  wheat,  corn,  beef,  pork,  lard,  and  petroleum  : the  simple  fact 
that  we  have  given  the  buyers  of  the  world  a better  article  for  less  money.  And  when 
American  ships  will  do  the  transporting  as  well,  as  expeditiously,  and  as  cheaply  as 
those  of  any  other  country  in  the  world,  then  they  will  come  in  for  a share  of  the  trade. 
If  we  are  in  a trade  sending  any  of  the  above  products  to  a foreign  market  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  a profit  out  of  it,  and  it  can  be  transported  in  a foreign  vessel  for  10 
per  cent,  less  freight  than  in  an  American  ship,  what  does  the  shrewd  American  do  ? 
Why,  he  puts  his  patriotism  in  his  pocket,  for  the  time  being,  and  transports  his  traffic 
in  a foreign  bottom.  It  is  all -very  well  to  have  our  cousuls  make  reports  about  the 
wants  of  tho  people  in  the  several  countries  in  which  they  are  located,  yet  when  a 
manufacturer  makes  goods  just  suited  to  their  wants,  and  asks  20  per  cent,  more  for 
them  than  they  cau  buy  an  equally  good  article  for,  would  any  sensible  man  expect 
the  American  goods  to  find  sale  under  such  circumstances? 

Now,  Mr.  Whitman,  I think  I have  given  sufficient  reasons  why  I cannot  give  you 
my  personal  co-operation  in  the  direction  in  which  you  are  moving  in  the  matter  of 
tariff  revision. 

Respectfully, 

WILLIAM  DEAN. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


477 


[Wm.  F.  Read,  silks,  leather  gloves.  ] 

Philadelphia,  December  31,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington : 

Sir:  I had  hoped  before  this  to  have  prepared  and  sent  to  you  some 
suggestions  as  to  the  rates  of  duty  on  wool,  woolen  goods,  and  yarns 
and  cotton  goods  and  yarns,  as  requested  in  your  esteemed  favor  of  the 
27th  of  October,  but  have  not  been  able  to  do  so;  will  endeavor  to  for- 
ward them  shortly.  I have,  however,  embodied  my  ideas  of  what  the 
duties  on  silks,  &c.,  should  be,  in  the  inclosed,  to  which  I invite  your 
attention. 

The  rates  suggested  may  appear  in  some  instances  higher  than  the 
present,  but  in  general  they  will  be  found  lower.  It  would  of  course  be 
quite  impossible  to  regulate  this  exactly  under  a specific  principle,  and 
make  a simple  rate  of  duty  the  collection  of  which  would  be  easy  and 
effective,  and  a positive  quantity. 

I have  not  recommended  a lower  duty  on  black  silks  than  colored, 
which  is  a discrimination  generally  insisted  on.  The  rate  suggested 
would,  if  levied  on  many  black  silks  as  now  made,  yield  the  Treasury 
more  than  the  present  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  but  this  would  soon  cor- 
rect itself.  This  specific  rate  would  bear  heavily  on  the  adulterations 
with  which  the  silk  is  loaded  in  dyeing,  and  force  the  manufacturer  to 
furnish  more  honest  goods.  Making  the  goods  of  honest  silk  would 
raise  their  value  and  reduce  the  specific  rate  below  the  present  ad 
valorem  rate  (to  say  nothing  about  undervaluation),  correct  an  evil,  and 
ultimately  benefit  the  American  consumer. 

In  reference  to  kid  gloves,  I submit,  in  lieu  of  any  present  recommen- 
dation, my  views  as  to  rates  as  presented  in  the  inclosed  pamphlet  is- 
sued in  1879.  The  failure  then  to  get  a specific  rate  substituted  for  an 
ad  valorem  rate,  forced  me  with  much  loss  from  the  business,  and  while 
I am  not  at  all  interested  in  it  nor  informed  on  it  now,  I believe  that 
the  views  then  expressed  will  apply  with  as  much  force  to  the  present. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

WM.  F.  BEAD. 


Schedule — Silk  and  silk  goods. 

Silk  partially  manufactured  from  cocoons  or  from  waste  silk  and  not  further  ad- 
vanced or  manufactured  than  carded  or  combed  silk,  50  cents  per  pound. 

Thrown  silk,  in  gum,  not  more  advanced  than  singles,  tram,  organzine,  sewing  silk, 
twist  floss,  in  the  gum,  and  silk  threads  or  yarns  purified  or  dyed,  excepting  those 
made  from  spun  silk,  $L  per  pound  and  1(3  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Spun  silk,  in  threads,  yarns,  or  warps,  50  cents  per  pound  and  16  per  cent,  ad 
valorem. 

On  lastings,  mohair  cloth,  silk  twist,  or  other  manufactures  of  cloth  woven  or  made 
in  patterns  of  such  size,  shape,  or  form,  or  cut  in  such  manner  as  to  be  fit  for  buttons 
exclusively,  10  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

All  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  not  specially  enumerated  and  provided  for  in 
this  act,  made  wholly  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  material  of  value  over 
80  per  cent.,  and  weighing  over  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  $2  per  pound  and  16  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

All  goods  as  above  of  which  silk  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  over  50 
percent,  and  not  exceeding  80  per  cent.,  and  weighing  over  one  ounce  per  square 
yard,  $1.50  per  pound  and  16  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

All  goods,  &c.,  made  wholly  of  silk  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  material  of 
chief  value,  weighing  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  15  cents  per  square  yard 
and  16  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


478  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


All  goods,  &c.,  composed  of  silk  and  cotton  or  other  vegetable  fiber,  or  a mixture 
of  them,  silk  not  being  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  5 cents  per  square 
yard  and  16  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

All  goods,  &c.,  composed  of  silk  and  wool,  or  other  animal  hair  or  fiber,  or  a mix- 
ture of  them,  silk  not  being  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  50  cents  per 
pound  and  16  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


Philadelphia,  December  29,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir  : Assuming  that  all  importers,  commission  merchants,  foreign 
manufacturers,  commissionaires,  and  others  engaged  or  interested  in 
introducing  goods  into  the  United  States  are  strictly  honest,  and  con- 
scientiously desire  to  “ render  unto  Caesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar’s,” 
no  more  just  and  equitable  mode  of  levying  duty  upon  all  merchandise 
could  be  devised  than  a percentage  upon  market  value,  at  the  place  of 
production, 

In  theory,  upon  such  a basis  as  this,  nothing  could  be  more  perfect, 
as  it  accommodates  itself  exactly  to  the  wants  of  the  consumer,  and  with 
even-handed  justice  avoids  all  discrimination. 

It  levies  in  an  exact  ratio ; and  the  coarser  article  used  by  the  poorer 
class  pays,  like  the  better  and  more  costly  product,  only  its  fair  pro- 
portion of  revenue. 

That  ad  valorem  rates  were  conceived  in  a spirit  of  fairness  and  just- 
ice to  all  alike,  admits  of  no  question ; and  that  they  have  failed  sig- 
nally in  meting  them  out,  either  to  the  Government  or  people,  can  be 
as  clearly  demonstrated. 

All  revenue  laws,  based  upon  the  Utopian  idea  of  inherent  integrity 
in  the  manufacturers  of  foreign  countries  and  importers  of  our  own, 
have  always  been  and  will  always  be,  failures. 

Foreign  manufacturers  are,  as  a class,  fully  conversant  with  our  tariff 
laws,  owe  no  obligations  to  our  Government,  look  upon  our  high  rates 
of  duty  as  unjust  impediments  to  the  distribution  of  their  products ; and 
(especially  on  the  European  continent)  seek  to  evade  the  full  payment 
of  the  amount  legally  exacted,  by  undervaluing  market  value,  classify- 
ing qualities  of  a higher  grade  as  those  of  a lower,  and  by  numerous 
other  devices,  difficult  of  detection,  and,  if  detected,  still  more  difficult 
of  proof.  Much  of  this  is  also  done  through  collusion  with  the  importer 
and  commission  merchant  here,  although  in  some  cases  the  latter  may 
possibly  be  made,  through  ignorance,  innocent  instruments.  The  con- 
stant tendency  is  to  increase  undervaluation  from  competition  among 
those  undervaluing. 

An  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  can  hardly  be  safely  levied  on  products 
having  a well-known  and  clearly  established  foreign  market  value; 
while,  on  goods  extending  over  a wide  range  of  prices,  produced  by  va- 
rious countries  and  liable  to  all  shades  of  quality,  it  must  always  offer 
a premium  for  fraud,  make  fairness  an  impossibility,  and  cause  the  just 
to  be  speedily  driven  out  of  the  traffic  by  the  unjust. 

This  latter  condition  is  that  exactly  of  kid  and  leather  gloves ; and 
until  the  present  ad  valorem  rate  of  50  per  cent,  is  changed  (as  it  should 
be  speedily)  the  Government  will  be  defrauded  largely,  and  the  business 
of  their  importation  drift  entirely  into  unscrupulous  hands. 

France  produces  real  kid  gloves  ranging  from  68  francs,  or  $20.40 
landed  here  duty  paid,  per  dozen,  for  ladies’  2-button  to  26.50  francs,  or 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


479 


$7.95,  with  all  shades  of  quality  and  price  between  the  two ; and  in  ad- 
dition many  varieties  of  lambskin  with  equivalent  variations  in  value. 

Germany,  particularly  Saxony,  excels  in  lambskins,  with  a range  of 
prices  from  15  marks  or  $6,  to  30  marks  or  $12. 

Austria  manufactures  very  largely  all  grades  of  lambskin  gloves, 
rauging  from  7 florins  or  $5  to  15  florins,  $10.50;  and  Italy  sends  from 
her  factories  leather  gloves  as  low  as  14  lire  or  $4.20,  and  as  high  as  30 
lire  or  $9. 

When  it  is  remembered  that  the  leather  from  which  this  article  is 
made  is  an  animal  product  liable  to  all  the  natural  variations  and  vicissi- 
tudes to  which  animals  are  subject,  it  is  easy  to  realize  into  what  nu- 
merous subdivisions  of  quality  the  article  from  which  it  is  manufactured 
is  capable ; and  beariug  this  in  mind  it  is  still  more  easy  to  see  with 
what  degree  of  safety  a heavy  percentage  of  undervaluation  can  be  re- 
sorted to. 

No  Government  officer  can  be  expected  to  be  expert  enough  to  detect 
the  slight  differences  in  quality,  and  no  manner  of  collecting  duty  de- 
pending upon  any  such  an  amount  of  skill  can  ever  be  reli  able  or  satisfac- 
tory. 

Importers  of  kid  and  leather  gloves  in  Boston,  Philadelphia,  Balti- 
more, Chicago,  and  ports  other  than  New  York,  have  gradually  lost 
their  business  and  found  themselves  unable  to  compete  with  the  agents 
of  foreign  manufacturers  located  in  the  latter  city.  Kid  gloves  were 
freely  offered  and  marketed  there  at  prices  often  below  the  actual  cost 
to  land  ; not  for  a day,  or  a week,  or  in  isolated  cases,  but  from  season 
to  season,  and  to  all  appearances  the  distributors  reaped  a profit. 

The  Treasury  Department,  being  apprised  of  this  fact,  instituted  an  in- 
vestigation, which  revealed  the  existence  of  a combination  in  New  York 
City,  and  indicated  undervaluation  of  market  valuein  leather  gloves, 
ranging  from  25  to  40  per  cent. 

An  exhaustive  report,  showing  how  this  conclusion  was  reached,  is 
now  on  file  at  the  Department,  and  it  is  so  convincing  in  its  character 
that  no  disinterested  reader  can  escape  the  conviction  that  so  rotten  a 
commercial  sore  needs  a most  speedy  and  radical  remedy. 

It  was  first  shown  by  extracts  from  actual  correspondence  that  com- 
missionaires and  manufacturers  in  Italy,  Austria,  and  Saxony  were  fully 
acquainted  with  our  tariff,  knew  how  to  avoid  payment  of  full  duties, 
and  openly  offered  to  consign  gloves  at  from  25  to  30  per  cent,  below 
market  values. 

One  of  these  letters  dated  back  ten  years;  and  all  of  them  revealed 
the  fact  that  throughout  the  countries  from  which  they  emanated,  un- 
dervaluation was  looked  upon  as  a common  and  customary  thing,  to 
which  it  was  necessary  to  resort,  to  market  the  consigned  gloves  to  a 
profit. 

In  fact,  one  manufacturer  declined  to  consign  to  a correspondent  who 
insisted  that  invoices  should  be  made  out  at  market  value,  on  the  ground 
that  the  American  importer  could  not  compete  with  those  whose  in- 
voices were  being  sent  forward  at  25  per  cent,  less,  and  therefore  any 
consignments  sent  to  him  must  be  surely  marketed  at  a loss. 

Selecting  from  the  great  and  varied  mass  of  leather  gloves  imported, 
the  fine  well-known  brands  of  real  kid,  made  in  France,  and  investi- 
gating their  market  value,  it  was  found  that  they  were  undervalued 
between  20  and  25  per  cent. 

It  was  found  also  that  the  different  makes  of  gloves  of  about  the 
same  value  here  were  all  invoiced  at  one  fixed  price,  while  it  was  a well- 


480  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


known  fact  that  tbe  prices  in  France  varied  to  some  extent,  and  were 
measured  there  by  reputation  as  well  as  quality. 

Ladies’  2- button  kid  gloves  of  first  quality,  in  well-known  brands, 
were  uniformly  invoiced  at  42  francs,  with  a rise  of  3 francs  additional 
for  each  button. 

Every  source  of  information  tapped  by  the  Government  revealed  a 
value  of  from  52  to  68  francs  for  ladies’  2-button,  and  a rise  of  not  less 
than  5 francs  and  sometimes  6 francs  for  each  additional  button. 

While  the  difference  of,  at  least,  10  francs  on  the  ladies’  2-button 
which  formed  the  basis  was  of  itself  very  serious,  the  additional  under- 
valuation on  the  rise  per  button  increased  it  enormously — 2 francs  per 
button  on  12  button  gloves  would  allow  30  francs  on  each  dozen  to  pass 
without  payment  of  duty.  The  selling  prices  in  this  country  published 
by  the  importers  of  the  gloves  in  question  were  then  taken  as  a basis 
for  calculation,  and  regular  account  sales  made  up  from  them.  The  net 
proceeds  from  these  presumed  sales  returned  to  the  manufacturer  more 
than  55  francs  for  2-button,  and  show  greater  profits  realized  on  all  the 
additional  buttons. 

After  due  consideration,  with  a view  to  test  the  matter,  the  apprais- 
er’s department  in  New  York  City  made  a general  advance  on  all  im- 
portations of  kid  and  leather  gloves,  which  led  to  numerous  merchant 
appraisements,  elicited  much  evidence,  and  laid  bare  the  whole  scheme. 

It  was  extremely  difficult  to  believe  that  some  of  the  best,  most  pre- 
sumedly honorable  and  wealthiest  houses  in  New  York  City  were 
knowingly  parties  to  this  practice;  but  it  is  still  more  difficult  to  un- 
derstand why  they  should  continue  to  combat  the  Government  in  its 
efforts  to  break  it  up,  when  evidence  from  all  quarters  points  clearly  to 
its  existence. 

While  the  Government  produced  invoices  of  similar  gloves  purchased 
on  the  market  direct  from  manufacturers  under  the  most  favorable  cir- 
cumstances as  to  credit  and  connection,  original  letters  showing  the 
condition  of  the  market  as  to  value — a letter  from  the  manufacturers  in 
question  themselves  to  one  of  the  best  and  most  responsible  houses  in 
France  quoting  to  them  55  francs  for  2 buttons,  price  lists  of  other 
manufacturers  showing  no  figure  below  52  francs  and  rising  as  high  as 
68  francs,  and  oral  evidence  from  witnesses  outside  of  New  York  affirm- 
ing these  quotations — the  defense  contented  themselves  with  stigma- 
tizing these  as  irrelevant,  and  confined  themselves  almost  exclusively 
to  proving  cost  of  production.  Much  oral  evidence  was  produced,  but 
it  was  the  testimony  of  the  interested  managing  experts  of  the  different 
New  York  importing  houses. 

If  the  records  of  these  different  merchant  appraisements  are  exam- 
ined it  will  be  found  that  around  this  profitable  42-franc  sun  revolved 
a fixed  number  of  planets,  each  accompanied  by  its  appropriate  sat- 
ellite. Any  successful  attempt  to  increase  the  value  of  this  luminary 
and  make  it  shine  for  all,  would  not  ouly  bedim  the  especially  favored 
planets,  but  perhaps  consign  the  satellites  to  utter  darkness,  and  hence 
but  little  reliauce  was  to  be  placed  upon  their  sworn  testimony. 

Without  mentioning  names,  much  that  they  swore  to  was  flatly  con- 
tradicted, both  by  their  own  subsequent  testimony,  as  well  as  uninter- 
ested rebuttal  evidence. 

Bearing  in  mind  that  all  fine  gloves  in  port  were  advanced  from  42 
francs  to  55  francs  at  one  time,  and  that  it  was  generally  understood 
that  all  other  makes  of  tbe  same  grade  would  share  the  same  fate  on 
arrival;  and  remembering  that  each  one  of  these  witnesses  represented 
some  one  of  the  makes  that  either  had  been  or  would  be  advanced,  it 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  481 

can  readily  be  seen  how  much  weight  should  attach  to  anything  to 
which  they  might  testify. 

None  dare  fail  to  sustain  the  invoice  or  case  under  consideration, 
knowing  full  well  that  the  goods  he  represented  must  soon  pass  through 
the  same  ordeal,  and  lack  of  zeal,  or  conscientious  scruples,  would  be 
rewarded  at  that  time  in  kind. 

Throwing  out  this  worthless  evidence — for  it  was  worthless,  being  cov- 
ered entirely  with  motive — nothing  was  left  to  oppose  the  overwhelming 
documents  and  testimony  submitted  by  the  Government  but  calcula- 
tions as  to  cost  of  manufacture. 

An  examination  of  the  assistant  appraiser  and  examiner  of  leather 
gloves  in  the  New  York  custom  house  by  the  commission  revealed  the 
fact  that  that  department  was  guided  entirely  by  the  invoices  of  one 
house,  and  when  the  invoices  of  other  houses  conformed  they  were 
passed  without  question. 

The  pertinent  suggestion  that  this  house  was  the  real  appraiser  and 
examiner,  as  they  set  the  example  on  the  customs’  blackboard  for  all  to 
copy,  could  after  this  admission  meet  with  nothing  but  an  affirmative 
reply. 

When  such  evidence  as  this  can  be  submitted  at  a merchant 
appraisement,  and  it  rarely  happens  that  it  can,  as  all  former  ap- 
praisements will  show,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  merchant 
appraisers,  before  whom  it  is  sworn  to,  can  arrive  at  any  other  conclu- 
sion than  that  reached  by  the  general  appraiser.  That  they  have  done 
so  in  some  instances,  however,  is  the  fact;  and  by  a course  of  reason- 
ing so  unique  that  they  seem  to  have  forgotten  that  they  were  called  as 
judges  of,  and  not  as  attorneys  for,  the  accused. 

To  effectually  conceal  the  real  market  price  of  gloves  entered  at  the 
custom-house,  manufacturers  engaged  in  undervaluation  almost  uni- 
formly refuse  to  furnish  prices  or  price  lists  to  any  person  making  inqui- 
ries, and  reply  that  they  are  so  fully  engaged  that  they  have  nothing 
to  offer.  Singularly,  this  refusal  comes  only  from  makers  doing  busi- 
ness with  the  United  States,  as  with  all  others  the  reverse  is  the  rule. 

Any  respectable  French,  German,  Austrian  or  Italian  commissionaire 
can  get  and  furnish  to  his  American  correspondent  price-lists  and 
samples  of  any  gloVes  not  represented  by  an  agent  in  the  United 
States ; but,  if  it  is  suspected  that  he  has  American  connections,  the 
latter,  without  exception,  refuse  to  furnish  the  information  on  the 
ground  that  they  are  fully  employed. 

A special  agent  of  the  Treasury  Department,  in  Paris  made  all  sorts  • 
of  efforts  to  get  quotations  for  some  well-known  brands  sold  largely  in 
this  country,  and  met  with  nothing  but  evasions,  refusals,  and  rebuffs. 
If  the  prices  at  which  the  gloves  were  invoiced  were  the  true  prices  at 
which  they  were  freely  offered  in  the  market  (as  the  law  requires), 
there  could  be  no  object  whatever  in  concealment;  and  while  under 
contract  they  might  be  unwilling  to  sell  except  through  their  agent, 
there  could  be  no  good  i^ason  why  the  price  should,  be  concealed. 

Besides,  these  manufacturers  are  a little  too  fond  of  money  to  turn 
up  their  noses  at  cash  buyers,  and  send  their  gloves  out  to  a foreign 
country  on  consignment  and  credit,  taking  the  risk  of  the  fluctuations 
of  the  market  on  a fancy  article  in  preference  to  selling  them  to  a cash 
customer  at  their  own  door. 

To  illustrate  the  advantages  of  a specific  duty : An  invoice  of  worsted 
goods,  paying  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  and  50  cents  per  pound  specific, 
reached  the  importer  a short  time  ago;  and,  as  an  experiment,  two  cases 
of  the  goods  were  emptied  and  the  contents  placed  on  the  scales, 
S.  Ex.  72 31 


482  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


revealing  a discrepancy  of  25  pounds  between  actual  and  invoice 
weight.  The  appraiser’s  department  was  immediately  notified,  sent  an 
officer  to  investigate,  who  affirmed  the  merchant’s  weight,  and  in  less 
than  one  hour  the  difference  was  satisfactorily  adjusted  to  all  concerned. 

Had  this  been  a purely  ad  valorem  question,  it  would  have  taken 
weekly  and  perhaps  months  to  have  arrived  at  any  conclusion ; the 
merchant  might  have  felt  aggrieved  and  the  appraiser’s  department 
might  have  doubted. 

This  case,  however,  was  capable  of  adjustment  by  any  official  whose 
eyes  were  strong  enough  to  read  the  figures  on  the  beam. 

This  duty  is  levied  upon  a textile  fabric,  capable  of  being  counted, 
having  a pretty  clearly  defined  market  value,  and  scarcely  admitting  of 
serious  under- valuation. 

If  deemed  essential  on  woolen  goods,  subject  to  such  conditions,  how 
much  more  essential  is  it  on  animal  products  embracing  so  many 
varieties,  manufactured  in  so  many  different  countries,  deprived  by  the 
nature  of  its  chief  component  material  from  submission  to  any  known 
mechanical  test  as  to  price,  and  relying  solely  upon  the  eye  and  touch 
of  the  expert ! 

On  such  an  article  as  this  an  ad  valorem  rate  is  an  invitation  to  the 
unscrupulous.  That  invitation  should  be  promptly  withdrawn  and  the 
specific  remedy  applied. 

A given  number  of  threads  to  the  square  inch  of  any  particular  num- 
bers of  warp  and  yarn  will  produce,  if  woven  plain,  the  same  identical 
cloth,  and  the  value  with  a counting  glass  can  be  accurately  deter- 
mined; if  further  advanced  in  manufacture  by  printing  or  dyeing,  this 
can  also  be  clearly  arrived  at.  Such  goods  as  these  bear  now  a mixed 
duty,  the  greater  percentage  of  which  is  specific.  If  upon  textile  fab- 
rics, where  the  duty  of  the  examiner  is  much  more  easily  and  fairly  dis- 
charged, it  is  deemed  essential  to  place  a mixed  rate,  largely  specific, 
how  much  more  imperatively  necessary  is  it  upon  leather  gloves,  which 
make  that  duty  complicated  and  difficult  ? 

You  ask  that  one  man  shall  be  so  thoroughly  qualified  as  to  be  able 
not  only  to  detect  differences  in  quality  in  an  article  the  chief  compo- 
nent material  of  which  is  an  animal  product;  but  also  that  he  shall  be 
well  posted  in  the  market  prices  of  this  same  article,  the  manufacture  of 
which  is  scattered  over  continental  Europe.  Is  it  known  that  besides 
the  actual  variations  in  the  skius  of  all  animals  of  the  same  species 
these  leather  gloves  are  produced  from  the  hides  of  kids,  goats,  and 
lambs  raised  in  France,  Italy,  Germany,  Servia,  South  America,  and 
elsewhere ; and  that  the  dressing,  tanning,  dyeing,  and  finishing  of  each 
locality  imparts  to  them  a different  character? 

The  question  is  not  so  much  whether  the  highly  respectable  firms 
whose  names  appear  in  the  late  appraisements  of  kid  gloves  are  guilty 
or  innocent  of  fraudulent  complicity  with  the  foreign  manufacturers  in 
their  efforts  to  defraud  the  Treasury  of  its  just  legal  dues ; but  whether 
a duty  levied  in  so  loose  a manner  as  to  permit  undervaluations  of  such 
magnitude  should  not  be  speedily  changed. 

Legislatures  cannot  be  expected  to  be  like  well-digested  encyclope- 
dias, in  which  every  important  subject  is  edited  by  its  appropriate  ex- 
pert ; and  must  often  fall  short,  either  in  the  rate  levied  under  laws  en- 
acted or  the  mode  of  collection. 

An  article  like  leather  gloves,  embracing,  as  it  has  been  shown,  so 
many  grades  and  varieties  of  grades,  is  not  a fit  subject  for  so  high  an 
ad  valorem  rate  as  50  per  cent. ; and  while  the  amount  of  duty  imposed 
js  not  onerous,  and  forms  uo  good  ground  for  complaint,  the  manner  of 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


483 


collection  on  value  has  and  must  always  result  in  a loss  of  revenue,  an 
uncertainty  to  the  trade,  and  a demoralization  of  all  who  continue  in  it. 
If  the  necessities  of  the  revenue  could  permit  a nominal  ad  valorem  rate 
of  10  per  cent,  upon  them,  it  might,  and  probably  would,  be  possible  to 
honestly  collect  it ; but  any  rate  as  high  even  as  25  per  cent,  would  be 
open  to  all  these  objections. 

As  the  matter  stands  at  present,  the  Appraisers’  Glove  Department 
at  New  York  is  beset  with  many  dfficulties ; and  in  its  efforts  to  compel 
payment  of  duty  on  actual  market  value,  has  tied  up,  to  the  disgust  of 
the  importers,  large  amounts  of  goods.  To  expect  an  examiner  to  be 
thoroughly  informed  of  the  market  price  of  gloves  from  the  thousand  and 
one  sources  of  European  supply  is  simply  ridiculous ; and  it  is  too 
much  to  hope  that  any  one  engaged  in  the  trade  can  make  semi-annual 
pilgrimages  to  these  places  and  furnish  not  only  information  but  evi- 
dence to  sustain  it. 

Government  agents  might  do  something  in  this  direction,  but  it  must 
always  fall  very  far  short  of  what  is  required. 

Paris  alone  produces  grades  and  varieties  enough  in  kid,  lamb,  and 
other  leather  gloves  sufficient  to  make  the  labors  of  the  glove  examiner, 
be  he  ever  so  expert  and  efficient,  very  difficult  and  extremely  uncertain  ; 
and  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  Prench  capital  has  almost  as  many 
glovemakers  as  our  own  large  cities  have  shoemakers,  who  make  them 
from  the  thousand  dozens  to  the  special  single  pair,  it  can  be  readily 
conceived  how  much  he  must  know  to  honestly  sit  in  judgment  on  their 
invoices;  but,  when  you  come  to  add  to  this  gloves  from  Grenoble  with 
as  many  makers  and  grades,  gloves  from  Turin,  gloves  from  Madrid, 
gloves  from  Naples,  gloves  from  Vienna,  gloves  from  Prague,  from 
Berlin,  from  Altenburg,  from  Halberstadt,  from  Luxemburg,  from  Dres- 
den, from  Chaumont,  and  other  places,  with  their  various  grades  and 
varieties,  it  is  surely  expecting  too  much  that  an  examiner  or  appraiser, 
cooped  up  for  years  between  the  four  walls  of  a Government  building, 
who  perhaps  has  never  been  in  any  of  these  markets,  and  if  he  has  it  is 
so  long  ago  that  his  knowledge  then  obtained  is  useless  now,  can  fairly 
estimate  market  value  and  detect  undervaluation. 

Should  any  mode  of  collecting  duty  be  continued  based  upon  the  idea 
that  the  necessary  ability  to  do  all  this  can  be  found  at  the  price  the 
Government  pays  for  such  services  or  at  ten  times  that  figure? 

It  is  clearly  shown  that  neither  the  honesty  of  the  foreign  manufact- 
urer nor  the  integrity  of  his  American  agent  can  be  relied  upon  for  in- 
voices at  the  true  market  value;  and  when  they  conspire  together  and 
form  a combination  with  others  in  the  same  business,  the  folly  of  con- 
tinuing an  ad  valorem  rate  is  apparent. 

The  only  bulwark  against  fraud  in  the  importation  of  this  article  is 
the  specially  detailed  examiner,  of  whom  more  is  expected  than  aver- 
age human  capacity.  Let  him  be  dishonest  or  approachable,  and  it  is 
easy  to  see  how  readily  this  slight  safeguard  is  swept  away. 

That  the  late  dfficulties  in  New  York,  which  are  known  as  “the  kid- 
glove  question,”  have  produced  much  good  and  inflicted  some  well- 
merited  injury  cannot  be  questioned — they  have  at  least  caused  all  in- 
terested to  turn  their  eyes  towards  some  positive  remedy,- 

Although  for  years  the  collective  trade  in  this  article  in  New  York 
City  has  always  opposed  the  imposition  of  a specific  duty  upon  it,  and 
successfully  met  all  efforts  to  change  the  present  ad  valorem  rate  to  one 
on  quantity,  these  very  dfficulties  seem  to  have  removed  the  scales  from 
their  eyes ; and  some  of  them,  who  were  before'  the  most  bitter  oppo- 


484  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


nents  of  the  chauge,  are  now  publicly  calling  for  it  through  pamphlet 
and  newspaper. 

The  kid-glove  crusade  may  be  said  to  have  originated  with  this  ob- 
jective point  solely  in  view.  Every  previous  effort  made  with  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means  seems  to  have  failed  from  the  exertion  of 
some  unseen  influence,  at  the  moment  that  it  promised  to  bear  fruit, 
and  this  thorough  unveiling  of  the  whole  system  to  the  general  gaze 
seemed  necessary. 

The  egg  that  looked  so  fair  required  but  to  have  its  shell  punctured 
to  reveal  its  rottenness.  What  a pity  it  is  that  there  are  so  many  more 
of  a like  kind  lying  unbroken  in  the  same  basket ! 

Very  resp’y, 


WM.  F.  EEAD. 


Recommendations  as  to  change  of  tariff  on  leather  gloves. 

Gentlemen  : In  compliance  with  your  request,  I beg  to  give  you  my  views  as  to 
what  specific  rate  of  duty  upon  leather  gloves  would  yield  as  much,  if  not  more,  reve- 
nue than  the  present  ad  valorem  rate,  and  prevent  the  discrimination  now  existing 
between  gloves  which  are  imported  into  the  country  at  actual  market  value  at  the 
place  of  production,  and  pay  full  duty  based  upon  such  value,  and  other  or  consigned 
gloves  which  are  sent  out  at  a presumed  or  fictitious  value  arranged  between  the 
manufacturer  and  his  agent  or  the  foreign  seller  and  the  importer. 

The  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  furnished  me  on  the  8th  of  February,  1878, 
the  following  statement,  showing  the  quantities  and  values  of  leather  gloves  im- 
ported into  the  United  States  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1877  : 


Whence  imported. 

Dozen 

pairs. 

J Value. 

Price  per 
dozen. 

From  Belgium 

6,  377 
231, 093 
258, 870 
99,063 
310 
149 

$41, 024 
1,356,  022 
1, 186, 109 
543, 517 
1,  333 
914 

$6  43 
5 86 

4 58 

5 48 
4 26 

6 13 

From  France 

"From  (rfirmany  . 

From  England 

From  Tt,fl,ly  ..  _ 

All  other  countries 

Total 

595, 862 

3, 128, 919 

*5  25 

*Average. 


The  printed  report,  page  40,  from  the  same  source  for  the  same  year  shows  that  the 
entered  value  of  the  aggregate  withdrawal  and  consumption  entries  was  $3,130,053.27, 
and  the  duty  collected,  at  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  $1,565,026.67. 

Taking  the  quantity  as  given  and  the  entered  value,  I find  that  the  average  value 
per  dozen  pairs  of  all  the  gloves  imported  is  $5.25  per  dozen  pairs,  upon  which  has 
been  collected  $2.62£  per  dozen  pairs. 

I assume,  on  the  grounds  given  on  the  several  occasions  I have  had  the  honor  to 
testify  before  your  Commission,  that  the  average  undervaluation  on  these  importa- 
tions reaches,  at  the  lowest  estimate,  35  per  cent.  ; and,  adding  this  percentage  to  the 
figures  already  given,  produces  the  value  at  which  the  importation  of  this  article 
during  that  fiscal  year  should  have  been  entered,  and  on  which  duty  should  have 
been  collected,  viz,  $3,912,566.68  at  50  per  cent.,  equals  $1,956,283.34,  or  a loss  to  the 
Government,  by  undervaluation,  of  $391,256.61. 

Upon  this  basis  a specific  duty  of  $3  per  dozen  pairs  would  produce  $1,787,586, 
and  one  of  $3.50  would  produce  $2,085,517,  and  either  rate  would  be  acceptable,  I 
think,  and  work  no  hardship  to  any  interest. 

1 am  opposed  to  any  discrimination  whatever  ; and  importing  as  I do  almost  all 
grades  of  leather  gloves,  I have  no  interest  in  favoring  one  kind  of  leather  glove  at 
the  expense  of  some  other  kind,  or  fostering  a trade  in  one  grade  to  the  exclusion  of 


another. 

I object'  to  discrimination  on  tin- 


'round  that  any  discriminating  specific  rate  based 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


485 


of  fraud  and  make  the  services  of  experts  still  necessary,  which  is  the  one  thing  of  all 
others  that  specific  rates  seek  to  avoid. 

It  is  difficult  to  distinguish  the  difference  between  real  kid  or  goat  skins  and  lamb 
or  sheep  skins ; the  ability  to  do  so  is  confined  to  a few,  and  that  few  comprises  only 
those  who  have  made  it  a specialty.  I believe  it  would  be  safe  to  assert  that  not 
over  5 pfer  cent,  of  the  buyers  of  leather  gloves  in  this  country,  outside  of  those 
engaged  in  their  importation,  are  able  to  tell  the  one  from  the  other;  and  I know 
that  the  unscrupulous  certainly  market  a large  quantity  of  lamb-skins  as  real  kid. 

Besides,  where  kid  and  lamb  skins  are  tanned,  dressed,  and  made  up  by  the  same 
manufacturer,  the  discrimination  becomes  still  more  difficult ; and  a different  rate  of 
duty  levied  upon  goods  that  are,  to  all  appearences,  the  same,  and  that  require  the 
eye  and  touch  of  the  expert  to  distinguish  their  differences,  would  lead  to  endless 
examinations  and  involve  the  trade  in.  the  same  complications  as  now  exist  under  the 
present  ad  valorem  rates. 

A lower  rate  of  duty  on  lamb-skin  or  sheep-skin  gloves  would  also  have  a tendency 
to  stimulate  and  increase  their  production  and  distribution. 

This  is  the  only  grade  of  leather  which  the  American  manufacturer  has  much,  if 
any,  prospect  of  working  profitably ; and  if  it  is  desirable  to  protect  this  industry,  it 
would  operate  against  it  to  discriminate  by  a lower  rate  at  the  expense  of  real  kid, 
and  this  inferior  article  would  be  more  extensively  foisted  upon  the  American  con- 
sumer. The  products  of  lamb  and  sheep  skin,  although  seemingly  strong  and  full  of 
stretch,  are  really  deficient  in  strength,  elasticity,  and  durability,  the  exact  pre- 
requisites of  good  leather  and  the  inherent  qualities  of  real  kid. 

Besides,  there  is  no  real  dividing  line  between  the  two  in  foreign  market  value,  for 
while  real  kid  gloves  reach  as  high  a valuation  for  two-buttons  as  60  francs  (or 
more)  or  $11.56  per  dozen,  they  also  descend  as  low  in  price  as  25  francs,  or  $4.82,  per 
dozen  ; and  while  lamb-skin  gloves  in  the  finor  grades  reach  28  marks,  or  $6.66,  they 
fall  as  low  as  12  francs,  or  $2.21,  per  dozen. 

The  present  fashion  in  leather  gloves  involves  the  consumption  of  greater  quanti- 
ties of  leather  than  formerly,  and  it  would  seem  that  some  discrimination,  based  upon 
the  extra  length  of  leather  required,  which  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value, 
would  be  desirable ; but  as  fashions  are  ephemeral,  and  a fashion  like  this,  originated 
merely  to  hide  deformities,  may  soon  pass  away,  I should  prefer  one  simple,  clear, 
specific  rate  upon  all  leather  gloves. 

If,  however,  it  is  part  of  your  intention  to  consider  the  question  of  increasing  the 
revenue  derived  from  the  importation  of  this  article,  together  with  the  protection  of 
the  industry  engaged  in  its  production  in  this  country,  then  the  following  specific 
discrimination,  capable  of  demonstration  by  any  inexperienced  Government  official, 
might  be  applied. 

By  actual  measurement  I find  that  all  one-button  ladies’  gloves  from  the  seam 
made  to  join  the  thumb-piece  to  the  hand,  at  the  centre  of  the  crotch,  to  the  outer 
edge  of  the  welt,  measure,  on  the  average,  about  3£  inches,  and  that  each  button  re- 
quires an  additional  inch  of  leather,  size  6 falling  below  this  measurement,  and  size 
8 rising  to  nearly  four  inches. 

A specific  rates  of  $3.00  or  $3.50  per  dozen  should,  therefore,  be  based  upon  one- 
button  gloves,  and  an  additional  rate  of  25  cents  per  dozen  be  levied  for  each  and 
every  additional  button. 

And  as  this  provision  might  be  evaded  by  the  substitution  of  some  other  mode  of 
fastening  or  no  fastening  at  all,  or  some  new  style  might  be  invented  which  this  pro- 
vision might  not  cover,  I would  propose  that  for  every  additional  inch  or  portion  of 
an  inch  of  leather  in  length  exceeding  four  inches,  measuring  from  the  upper  thumb- 
seam  where  it  joins  the  hand  to  fit  the  crotch  made  by  the  thumb  an<J  hand  to  the 
welt  or  edge  of  the  glove,  at  the  wrist  inclusive,  25  cents  additional  per  dozen  pairs. 

This  provision  would  operate  unfairly  on  men’s  gloves  in  the  large  sizes,  as  they 
exceed  this  measurement  in  one-button ; and  I see  no  way  to  overcome  this  except  by 
an  additional  proviso,  such  as  this : 

Provided,  however,  that  where  only  one  button  or  fastening  is  on  any  leather  glove, 
and  the  amount  of  leather  above  or  below  such  button  or  fastening  is  not  sufficient 
for  another  button  or  fastening,  it  shall  pay  duty  as  one  button  ; provided,  however, 
that  in  no  case  shall  any  glove  pay  duty  as  one-button  that  exceeds  five  inches, 
measuring  from  the  thumb-crotch  to  the  welt,  as  before  described. 

If  it  is  desired  to  levy  additional  duty  on  lined  gloves,  and  gloves  with  fancy  cuffs 
or  fur  tops,  then  I should  propose  that  all  lined  gloves  should  pay  50  cents  per  dozen 
pairs  additional,  and  all  gloves  outwardly  ornamented  with  fur  or  any  material  other 
than  the  leather  of  which  it  is  composed  should  pay  25  cents  per  dozen  pairs  addi- 
tional. 

I do  not,  however,  consider  this  discrimination  necessary,  as  the  importation  of 
gloves  of  this  character  is  limited,  and  the  amount  of  duty  collected  would  not,  in  my 
opinion,  be  sufficient  to  warrant  a complication  in  the  tariff. 


486  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[Walter  Aiken,  hosiery  and  Jcnilliny  machinery . J 

Franklin  Falls,  N.  H.,  December  18, 1885. 
Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury : 

Dear  Sir  : Inclosed  please  find  copy  of  letter  sent  to  John  L. 
Hayes,  esq.,  secretary  National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers. 
Yours,  truly, 

WALTER  AIKEN. 


John  L.  Hayes,  Esq.  : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  circulars  are  at  liand.  Permit  me  to  say  I am  not  in  accord  with 
the  sentiments  expressed  therein.  I am  in  favor  of  a revision  of  the  tariff.  Too 
much  protection  has  stimulated  the  hosiery  industry  so  that  home  competition  is 
worse  than  foreign,  besides  shutting  us  out  from  any  foreign  market. 

Give  us  free  raw  materials,  and  we  will  hold  our  own  against  the  world  with  such 
goods  as  we  make. 

Yours,  truly,  WALTER  AIKEN. 


[Dexter,  Lambert  & Co.  and  others,  silks.'] 

New  York,  December  14, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.: 

Dear  Sir  : The  schedule  of  silk  duties  herewith  submitted  is  sub- 
stantially as  agreed  to  by  the  Silk  Association  of  America  in  July  last, 
after  great  labor  and  consideration.  On  careful  reconsideration  it  has 
been  slightly  modified  for  simplicity  and  some  reductions  made.  A 
substitute  duty  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  is  offered  in  place  of  a 
measurement  duty  of  18  cents  per  square  yard. 

The  great  variety  in  silk  goods  as  to  materials,  designs,  and  labor  and 
charges  makes  it  almost  if  not  altogether  impossible  to  apply  a fixed 
duty  which  will  have  any  equitable  result. 

The  improvement  in  the  collection  of  ad  valorem  duties  which  now 
prevails  at  the  New  York  appraiser’s  department  is  very  marked,  but 
it  has  not  been  yet  exhausted.  A fairly  vigorous  application  of  the  9th 
section  of  the  tariff*  act  of  1883  would  be  productive  of  beneficial  re- 
sults to  the  United  States  Treasury  and  to  the  industry  of  the  country, 
especially  as  the  cost  of  90  per  cent,  of  silk  goods  may  be  ascertained 
as  closely  as  the  cost  of  a building  may  be. 

We  submij  this  schedule  with  the  greatest  respect,  and  shall  at  any 
time  be  at  your  command  to  make  any  personal  explanation  of  anything 
in  it  if  you  so  desire. 

Cheney  Brothers,  New  York  and  Hartford,  Conn. ; Dexter, 
Lambert  & Co.,  New  York,  Paterson,  N.  J.,  Hawley,  Pa. ; 
William  Strange  & Co.,  New  York,  and  Paterson,  N.  J.; 
Hamil  & Booth,  New  York,  and  Paterson,  N.  J.;  The 
Pioneer  Silk  Company,  New  York,  and  Paterson,  N.  J.; 
The  Piienix  Manufacturing  Company,  New  York,  Pater- 
son, N.  J.,  and  Allentown,  Pa.;  John  N.  Stearns  & Co., 
New  York;  Claude  Chaff aujon,  New  York,  and  Jersey 
City,  N.  J. ; Louis  Franke  & Co.,  New  York,  and  Paterson, 
N.  J.;  Richard  Walter,  New  York;  B.  Richardson  & 
Son,  New  York. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  487 

On  silk  partially  manufactured  from  cocoons,  or  from  waste  silk,  and  not  further 
advanced  or  manufactured  than  carded  or  combed  silk,  50  cents  per  pound. 

On  silk  threads  or  yarns  in  the  gum,  or  purified  or  dyed,  in  skeins,  or  on  cops  or 
spools,  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

On  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  not  otherwise  herein  provided  for,  weighing 
not  less  than  one  ounce  per  square  yard,  nor  more  than  eight  ounces  per  square  yard, 
made  of  silk  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component  material  of  chief  weight,  white  and 
colors,  $3  per  pound,  and  18  cents  per  square  yard,  or  $3  per  pound  and  20  per  cent, 
ad  valorem ; blacks,  $2  per  pound,  and  18  cents  per  square  yard,  or  $2  per  pound  and 
20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

On  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  containing  25  per  cent,  and  not  more  than  50 
per  cent,  in  weight  of  silk,  $1.50  per  pound  and  18  cents  per  square  yard,  or  $1.50  per 
pound  and  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

On  all  goods  containing  10  per  cent,  and  less  than  25  per  cent,  in  weight  of  silk, 
75  cents  per  pound  and  18  cents  per  square  yard,  or  75  cents  per  pound  and  20  per 
cent,  ad  valorem. 

On  all  other  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  not  otherwise  herein  provided  for, 
made  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  is  a component  material  of  10  per  cent,  or  over  in 
weight,  irrespective  of  the  classification  thereof  for  duty  by  or  under  previous  laws, 
or  of  their  commercial  designation,  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

In  ascertaining  the  percentage  of  silk,  the  weight  of  silk  shall  be  taken  as  found 
in  the  goods. 

Cheney  Brothers,  New  York,  and  Hartford,  Conn. ; Dexter,  Lambert  & 
Co.,  New  York,  Paterson,  N.  J.,  and  Hawley,  Pa. ; William  Strange  & 
Co.,  New  York,  and  Paterson,  N..J. ; Hamil  & Booth,  New  York,  and 
Paterson,  N.  J. ; The  Pioneer  Silk  Company,  New  York,  and  Paterson, 
N.  J. ; The  Phenix  Manufacturing  Company,  New  York,  Paterson,  N.  J., 
and  Allentown,  Pa.,*  John  N.  Stearns  & Co..  New  York;  Claude  Chaf- 
faujon,  New  York,  and  Jersey  City,  N.J. ; Louis  Franke  & Co.,  New 
York,  and  Paterson,  N.  J. ; Richard  Walker,  New  York;  B.  Richardson 
& Son,  New  York. 


(Cheney  Brothers,  silJcs.) 

South  Manchester,  Conn.,  December  1, 1885. 
Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G.: 

Sir:  We  have  delayed  replying  to  your  circular  of  July  29  and  31, 
because  we  have  not  been  able  to  answer  your  inquiries  in  a way  sat- 
isfactory to  ourselves  or  to  silk  manufacturers  generally. 

We  are  fully  aware  of  the  evils  resulting  from  the  systematic  under- 
valuation of  imported  silk  goods,  which  we  are  glad  to  say  have  lately 
been  checked  to  some  extent  by  a more  rigorous  and  intelligent  en- 
forcement of  the  existing  tariff  laws.  The  fault  in  the  past  has  not 
been  owing  so  much  to  defects  in  the  laws  as  to  their  not  having  been 
uniformly  put  in  execution. 

Ad  valorem  duties  are,  in  theory  at  least,  the  most  equitable;  but  it 
is  difficult  to  arrive  at  their  equivalent  on  a specific  basis.  The  first 
cost  of  silk  goods  does  not  make  a safe  standard  of  value,  because  they 
are  subject  to  changes  of  fashion,  and  their  market  values  fluctuate 
more  than  is  the  case  with  other  articles.  New  styles  and  designs  com- 
mand high  prices  at  the  beginning  of  a season,  and  are  almost  unsal- 
able at  the  end.  There  is  a wide  range  in  the  first  cost  of  the  materials 
they  are  made  of,  and  it  is  difficult  to  determine  this  in  the  finished 
goods,  where  the  skilled  labor  and  artistic  work  cost  more  than  the  raw 
materials.  The  highest  grades  cannot  be  appraised  by  weight  with  more 
certainty  than  many  other  works  of  art.  Any  scale  of  specific  duties 
which  can  be  devised  will  be  unfair  in  extreme  cases. 

Another  element  of  uncertainty  is  the  weighting  of  silks  by  various 
heavy  dyes.  The  percentage  of  weighting  cannot  be  ascertained  with 
accuracy  except  by  chemical  analysis,  which  the  appraisers  are  not  pre- 


488  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


pared  to  make,  and  vvkicb  would  require  so  much  time  that  business 
would  be  seriously  delayed. 

The  classifications  of  goods  will  have  to  be  very  numerous  in  order  to 
equalize  duties  on  a specific  basis,  and  complications  will  arise  quite  as 
often  as  in  finding  out  foreign  market  values. 

Our  silk  manufacturers  have  passed  through  two  years  of  business 
depression  since  the  tariff  was  last  revised,  March  3, 1883,  and  are  not  now 
prepared  to  meet  any  further  reduction  of  duties.  We  deprecate  any 
changes  at  present  in  our  tariff  laws,  except  to  correct  obvious  errors 
and  omissions,  such  as  that  in  Schedule  N,  448,  in  which  the  omission  of 
the  word  vegetable  has  caused  serious  trouble,  the  nature  of  which  the 
Treasury  Department  is  fully  aware  of,  and  which  need  not  be  explained 
here. 

If,  however,  it  is  thought  best  to  adopt  specific  duties  as  far  as  is 
practicable,  we  submit  the  following  substitute  for  Schedule  L,  as  the 
simplest  and  best  form  we  can  suggest  under  the  present  circumstances. 

On  silk  partially  manufactured  from  cocoons  or  from  waste  silk,  and 
not  further  advanced  or  manufactured  than  carded  or  combed  silk,  50 
cents  per  pound. 

On  silk  threads  or  yarns  in  the  gum,  or  purified,  or  dyed,  in  skeins 
or  on  cops  or  spools,  30  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

On  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  not  otherwise  herein  provided 
for,  weighing  not  less  than  1 ounce  per  square  yard,  nor  more  than  8 
ounces  per  square  yard,  made  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  is  the  component 
material  of  chief  weight,  $3  per  pound,  and  18  cents  per  square  yard. 

On  all  goods  containing  25  per  centum  and  not  more  than  50  per 
centum  in  weight  of  silk,  $1.50  per  pound,  and  18  cents  per  square  yard. 

On  all  goods  containing  10  per  centum  and  less  than  25  per  centum 
in  weight  of  silk,  25  cents  per  pound,  and  18  cents  per  square  yard. 

On  all  other  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  not  otherwise  herein 
provided  for,  made  of  silk  or  of  which  silk  is  a component  material  of 
10  per  centum  or  over  in  weight,  irrespective  of  the  classification  there- 
of for  duty  by  or  under  previous  laws,  or  of  their  commercial  designa- 
tion, 50  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

In  ascertaining  the  percentage  of  silk,  the  weight  of  silk  shall  be  taken 
as  found  in  the  goods. 

We  remain,  your  obedient  servants, 

CHENEY  BROTHERS. 


[The  Same.]1 

South  Manchester,  Conn., 

December  18,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir:  We  are  well  aware  that  the  schedule  of  specific  duties  we  sug- 
gested will  be  unequal  on  many  articles,  and  only  look  upon  it  as  ah  at- 
tempt to  arrive  at  a fair  general  average.  These  inequalities  can  be 
lessened  by  substituting  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  20  per  centum  for  18 
cents  per  square  yard  in  addition  to  the  specific  rates  per  pound  stated 
in  the  schedule.  The  difference  between  heavy  blacks  and  white  and 
colors  can  be  to  some  extent  compensated  for  in  goods  containing  50 
per  centum  and  over  in  weight  of  silk  by  making  the  rate  on  blacks  $2 
per  pound  and  20  per  centum  ad  valorem  ; and  on  white  and  colors  $3 
per  pound  and  20  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

We  have  the  honor  to  remain,  with  respect,  your  obedient  servants, 

CHENEY  BROTHERS. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


489 


(James  McCreery  Ar.  Co.,  manufactures  of  flax,  jute,  liemp,  fc.  \ 

New  York,  December  19,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington : 

Sir  : Referring  to  our  letter  of  November  25,  we  now  beg  respect- 
fully to  band  you  a schedule  for  linen  goods. 

In  preparing  this  schedule  we  have  received  very  efficient  aid  from  some 
of  our  fellow  importers  dealing  in  different  linef  of  goods  from  those  we 
import  ourselves.  We  desire  particularly  to  express  our  obligations  to 
Messrs.  Richardson  Sons  & Owden,  of  Belfast  and  New  York,  who  have 
been  our  coworkers  in  the  preparation  of  this  schedule. 

Paragraphs  VIII  and  IX,  referring  to  yarns,  thread,  twine,  pack- 
thread, seines,  and  seine  and  gilling  twine,  have  been  inserted  by  us  as  a 
matter  of  form,  to  complete  our  schedule.  Mr.  William  Barbour,  to  whom 
we  applied  for  information  on  this  line  of  goods,  speaking  for  his  own 
firm  (The  Barbour  Brothers  Company)  and  the  American  Flax  Spinners 
and  Growers’  Association,  promised  to  send  you  at  an  early  date  a table 
of  specific  rates  for  the  goods  covered  by  these  two  paragraphs.  When 
received  we  desire  it  to  be  substituted  for  the  ad  valorem  rates  named 
by  us. 

We  respectfully  submit  that  there  should  be  no  difference  in  the  rate 
of  duty  imposed  on  gilling  twines  or  threads  and  other  twines  and 
threads.  It  is  practically  impossible  for  a custom-house  examiner  to 
tell  whether  twines  and  threads  are  to  be  used  for  fishing-nets  or  for 
other  purposes. 

We  take  the  liberty  of  inclosing  extracts  from  pages  331  and  335  of 
“ Essays  on  Political  Economy,”  by  Horace  Greeley,  the  Presidential 
nominee  of  the  Democratic  party  in  1872. 

Very  respectfully, 

JAMES  McCREERY  & CO. 


Extracts  from  Essays  on  Political  Economy , ly  Horace.  Greeley,  1877,  New0York. 

The  miflimum  form  of  specific  duties  allows  duties  to  be  adjusted  with  regard  to 
the  value  of  the  respective  articles  imported,  yet  interposes  a decided  obstacle  to  the 
importation  of  cheap,  showy,  worthless  goods  on  the  payment  of  only  nominal  du- 
ties.—(Page  331.) 

In  my  view  it  is  a weighty  recommendation  of  specific  duties  that  they  inevitably 
and  strongly  tend  to  prevent  the  importation  of  inferior  and  worthless  goods  by  tax- 
ing them  as  high  per  yard  or  per  pound  as  the  excellent  wares  and  fabrics  which  they, 
outwardly  resembling,  follow  afar  off,  and  would  fain  be  mistaken  for.  If  the  day 
shall  be  hastened  by  specific  duties,  in  which  no  one  can  afford  to  import  other  than 
a thoroughly  good  article  of  its  kind,  I shall  hail  it  as  a foretaste  of  the  millennium. 
(Page  335.) 


Schedule  recommended  as  a substitute  for  Schedule  J of  the  present  tariff  la  w. 

I.  Flax,  jute,  hemp,  manila,  sisal  grass,  ramie,  and  other  similar  vegetable  tex- 
tiles, when  not  further  advanced  than  scutched  or  separated  from  the  straw,  free. 
(See  327,  328,  333  of  the  present  law.) 

II.  The  same  when  hackled  or  dressed,  $10  per  ton.  (See  329,  331,  333  of  the  pres- 
ent law. ) 

III.  Tow  of  the  same  free.  (See  330  of  the  present  law. ) 

IV.  Goods  in  the  piece,  except  as  hereinafter  provided  for,  composed  wholly  of  tlax, 
jute,  hemp,  ramie,  or  other  similar  vegetable  textiles,  or  partly  of  flax,  jute,  hemp, 
ramie,  or  otheivsimilar  vegetable  textiles,  the  remainder  being  cotton,  shall  pay  the 
following  rates  of  duty,  according  to  the  number  of  threads  per  square  inch,  counting 


490  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


the  warp  and  filling,  viz : (See  334,  338,  339,  340,  341,  342,  343,  351  of  the  present 
law.) 

Counting — Cents. 

Under  32  threads  to  the  square  inch per  pound . . 1£ 

32  threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  not  more  than  40 per  square  yard. . 2 

Over  40  threads  to  the  square  inch,  bul*  not  more  than  48 "do 3 

Over  48  threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  not  more  than  56 do 4 

Over  56  threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  not  more  than  72 do 5 

Over  72  threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  not  more  than  88 do 6 

Over  88  threads  to  the  squaife  inch,  but  not  more  than  104 do 7 

Over  104  threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  not  more  than  120 do 8 

Over  120  threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  not  more  than  136 do 10 

Over  136  threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  not  more  than  152 do 12 

Over  152  threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  not  more  than  168 do 14 

Over  168  threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  not  more  than  184 do 16 

Over  184  threads  to  the  square  inch,  but  not  more  than  200  do 18 

Over  200  threads  to  the  square  inch ^ do 24 


V.  The  same,  if  hemmed  or  hemstitched,  shall  be  measured  twice  where  the  tissue  is 
double,  and  shall  pay  2 cents  per  square  yard  in  addition  to  the  rate  or  rates  herein- 
before specified.  (See  334,  338,  339,  340,  341,  342,  343,  351  of  the  present  law.  ) 

VI.  The  same,  if  embroidered  or  tamboured,  18  cents  per  square  yard  additional  to 
the  foregoing  rates,  which  shall  be  levied  upon  the  entire  surface  of  the  article  em- 
broidered. 

VII.  Doylies,  napkins,  towels,  covers,  and  other  articles,  when  fringed,  shall  be 
measured  to  the  end  of  the  fringe. 

VIII.  Yarns  made  of  flax,  jute,  hemp,  ramie,  or  other  similar  vegetable  textiles,  25 
per  centum  ad  valorem.  (See  335  of  the  present  law.) 

IX.  The  same,  when  further'  advanced  by  doubling  and  twisting  into  thread, 
twine,  pack-thread,  seines,  and  seine  and  gilling  twine,  35  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
(See  336  of  the  present  law.) 

X.  Sail  duck  or  canvas  for  sails,  4 cents  per  pound.  (See  348  of  the  present  law.) 

XI.  Tarred  cables  or  cordage,  3 cents  per  pound.  (See  344  of  the  present  law.) 

XII.  Untarred  cables  or  cordage,  2|  cents  per  pound.  (See  345-346  of  present  law. 

XIII.  On  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  not  otherwise  specially  enumerated  or 
provided  for  in  this  schedule,  composed  of  flax,  jute,  hemp,  ramie,  or  other  similar 
vegetable  textiles,  or  of  which  flax,  jute,  hemp,  ramie,  or  other  similar  vegetable  text- 
iles shall  be  a component  material,  the  remainder  being  cotton,  35  per  centum  ad  va- 
lorem. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

JAMES  McCREERY  & CO. 

New  York,  December  19,  1885. 


[Cotton  embroideries.] 

Treasury  Department, 

Office  of  the  Secretary, 
Washington , D.  <7.,  September  18,  1885. 
The  Hon.  Secretary  of  State  : 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  request  that  the  consul  at  St.  Galle,  Swit- 
zerland, may  be  instructed  to  confer  vfith  the  board  of  direction  of  the 
“ Commercial  Corporation  of  St.  Gall,”  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  its 
views  with  respect  to  the  best  method  of  applying  specific  duties  to 
cotton  embroideries  and  kindred  products  of  that  industrial  district, 
shipped  to  the  United  States. 

This  commercial  association  having  heretofore  shown  a disposition  to 
assist  the  officers  of  our  Government  in  their  efforts  to  secure  the  proper 
assessment  of  duties  upon  this  class  of  merchandise,  the  belief  is  justi- 
fied that  it  will  cheerfully  afford  to  the  consul  the  benefit  of  its  valuable 
knowledge  and  advice  upon  the  subject. 

Very  respectfully, 

D.  MANNING, 

Secretary. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


491 


Department  of  State, 

Washington , November  28,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir:  Referring  to  your  letter  of  the  13th  of  September  last,  I send 
you  inclosed  a copy  of  dispatch  number  15,  dated  the  2d  instant,  from 
the  consul  of  the  United  States  at  St.  Galle,  Switzerland,  accompanied 
by  a communication  from  the  commercial  corporation  of  that  city,  relat- 
ing to  the  application  of  specific  duties  to  cotton  embroideries. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

T.  F.  BAYARD. 


[No.  15.] 

United  States  Consulate  at  St.  Galle,  Switzerland, 

November  2,  1885. 

Hon.  James  D.  Porter, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Sir  : Referring  to  my  dispatch  (No.  13)  of  October  15,  I now  have  the  honor  to  in- 
close herewith  a paper  from  the  “ Commercial  Corporation  of  St.  Gall,”  in  the  form 
of  a recommendation  for  the  adoption  of  the  best  method  to  apply  specific  duties  to 
cotton  embroideries,  which  the  esteemed  corporation,  on  an  invitation  from  this  con- 
sulate, has  kindly  worked  out  with  a great  deal  of  trouble,  and  with  as  much  pru- 
dence, the  result  of  which  is  the  almost  uuanimous  desire  of  said  body  to  petition  the 
American  Government  for  the  adoption  of  a specific  weight  duty,  which  is  in  reply 
to  your  dispatch  (No.  11)  of  September  26,  1885. 

While  this  masterly  production  speaks  for  itself,  I cannot  but  inform  you  that  this 
“ Commercial  Corporation  of  St.  Gall”  consists  not  only  of  solid  men  of  honor,  but  the 
same  are  also  of  disinterested  character,  of  large  and  varied  experiences  on  commerce 
and  trade,  and  as  they  are  very  well  situated  financially,  they  can  afford  to  treat  such 
questions  independently.  Ready  as  they  are  to  protect  the  interests  of  their  own 
country  and  industry,  they  are  nevertheless  anxious  to  do  justice  to  such  interroga- 
tories as  were  put  to  them  by  the  American  Government,  and  in  which,  let  me  say, 
these  gentlemen  proved  their  mettle  by  submitting  a recommendation  which  has  been , 
a subject  of  couference  with  other  experienced  men  beyond  their  sphere  of  action. 

Finally,  allow  me  to  say  that  I should  not  have  failed  to  report  on  tliQ  feeling  of 
merchants  and  manufacturers  of  embroideries,  which  may  exist  among  them  pro  and 
con,  on  this  important  point,  but  as  I was  on  the  best  of  terms  with  the  leading  per- 
sons of  the  commercial  corporation  I considered  it  judicious,  after  due  consideration, 
to  await  their  decision  in  this  matter,  which  I am  pleased  to  say  coincides  principally' 
with  my  own  views. 

The  details  spoken  of  in  the  document  of  the  “ commercial  corporation  ” I will  trans- 
mit as  soon  as  received. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

PETER  STAUB, 

Consul. 


St.  Gallen,  October  29,  1885. 

Das  Kaufmdnnische  Directorium  to  the  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

Esteemed  Sir  : With  your  favor  of  tfie  12th  instant  you  invite  us,  by  desire  of  the 
Department  of  State  of  the  United  States,  to  inform  you  what  method  of  a specific  duty 
might  best  be  applied  to  cotton  embroidery  and  other  similar  productions  of  this  con- 
sular district,  exported  to  the  United  States. 

We  follow  your  invitation  with  pleasure,  and  beg  to  say  first  of  all  that  we  fully 
appreciate  and  understand  the  intention  of  the  American  Government  to  put  a com- 
plete stop  to  the  manifest  evils  of  levying  ad  valorem  duties  by  changing  them  into 
specific  duties,  and  on  our  part  give  it  our  complete  sympathy. 

The  removal  of  this  permanent  state  of  war  between  the  custom-house  authorities 
and  the  importers,  of  the  continual  suspicion  of  the  former  about  fraudulent  evasions 
of  duties  by  too  low  declarations  of  value,  the  unceasing  uncertainty  of  the  latter 


492  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


about  penalties  in  consequence  of  arbitrary  estimates,  is  indeed  in  the  highest  degree 
desirable,  and  would  undoubtedly  be  welcomed  as  a real  deliverance  by  the  custom- 
house officers  as  well  as  by  the  commercial  community. 

If  we  now  raise  the  question  of  the  means  by  which  an  absolutely  safe  and  equable 
mode  of  levying  duties  may  be  obtained,  or,  in  other  words,  how  the  ad  valorem  duty 
can  be  supplied  by  a specific  duty  which  would  not  carry  with  it  the  evils  of  the 
former  or  other  equally  serious  disadvantages,  we  only  know  one  remedy  and  one  spe- 
cific duty  which  leads  in  a simple  manner  and  at  the  same  time  quite  infallibly  to  the 
desired  end : The  adaptation  of  a moderate  specific  duty  on  the  weight  for  cotton  em- 
broideries. 

It  is  true  that  a theoretically  well-founded  objection  can  be  raised  against  the  ap- 
plication of  a specific  weight  duty  to  embroideries,  and  that  a fair  transformation  of 
the  ad  valorem  duty  into  a corresponding  duty  on  the  weight  will  encounter  certain 
difficulties,  but  that  objection  does  not  nearly  counterbalance  all  the  reasons  which 
speak  in  favor  of  the  specific  weight  duty,  and  with  some  good-will  these  difficulties 
may  be  overcome. 

The  objection  which  we  mean  is,  that  a uniform  weight  duty  he  not  applicable  to  a 
class  of  goods  comprising  articles  of  such  exceedingly  different  values  as  embroid- 
eries. Such  a rate  of  duty  would,  it  is  argued,  tax  quite  unequally  the  various  cate- 
gories, and  even  more  heavily  the  goods  intended  for  general  use  than  costly  articles 
of  luxury. 

Though  this  cannot  be  denied,  it  must,  on  the  other  hand,  not  be  overlooked  that 
among  the  embroideries  here  in  question  those  articles  which  may  be  designated  as 
actual  luxury  form  a very  small  fraction  of  the  total  importation  of  cotton  em- 
broideries. 

It  can  therefore  scarcely  cause  any  serious  scruple  if  the  finer  embroidery  is  in  some 
measure  favored  by  the  weight  duty.  A rise  of  the  price  of  the  current  articles, 
which  at  present  are  already  charged  with  the  exorbitant  ad  valorem  duty  of  40  per 
cent.,  can  be  obviated  by  first  adopting  the  average  value  of  these  very  articles 
as  basis  for  the  change  of  the  ad  valorem  duty  into  a specific  weight  duty,  a request 
which  in  itself  is  nothing  but  fair,  the  more  so  as  the  import  duty,  formerly  35  per 
cent.,  has  but  lately  been  raised  to  40  per  cent.  And  if  by  such  a change  the  lowest 
class  of  goods  should  be  charged  somewhat  higher  than  by  the  present  ad  valorem 
duty  this  scruple  will  surely  be  overcome  by  the  consideration  that  under  the  reign 
of  a moderate  specific  weight  duty  the  better  class  of  goods  will  be  in  the  reach  also 
of  the  less  wealthy,  who  thus,  for  a small  addition  of  expense,  will  get  something  in 
proportion  more  valuable. 

The  practical  advantages  which  stand  in  opposition  against  these  mainly  theo- 
retical objections  are  evident  and  plain  enough. 

A .—For  the  American  custom-house  administration. — I.  An  extraordinary  facilitation 
and  simplification  in  the  treatment  and  dispatch  of  embroideries  on  arrival. 

Appraisers  would  become  entirely  superfluous;  conflicts  and  investigations  of  any 
kind  would  disappear. 

The  balance  fixes  the  duty,  and  against  its  decision  there  is  not  even  a pretext  for 
claims  possible.  What  is  now  the  labor  of  hours  and  days  becomes  a matter  of  min- 
utes. 

II.  A very  considerable  saving  of  money  by  diminution  of  labor,  aiid  the  falling 
off  of  all  experts  and  appraisers. 

III.  The  complete  security  against  all  and  every  defraudation,  and  full  certainty  of 
obtaining  actually  and  truly  the  prescribed  duty  of  each  and  every  particular  ship- 
ment. We  are  fully  convinced  that  by  changing  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  into  a 
fair  weight  duty  the  American  Government,  will  not  suffer  the  least  loss,  and  in  con- 
sequence of  uniform  and  full  payment  of  customs  (dues,  make  a receipt  as  high  as  at 
present,  even  if  the  rate  of  duty  according  to  weight  would  be  fixed  considerably 
below  the  equivalent  of  the  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

B. — For  the  commercial  community. — I.  The  inestimable  satisfaction  that  disputes 
with  the  custom-house  authorities  are  no  longer  possible. 

II.  The  perhaps  still  more  valuable  security  that  any  temptation  on  the  part  of 
competitors  to  profit  by  undervaluations  would  completely  cease. 

III.  The  certainty  that  all  shipments  will  be  promptly  dispatched  in  the  custom 
house,  and  consequently  be  brought  into  the  store  and  market  without  any  delay. 

All  these  advantages  have  been  pointed  out  at  and  by  a numerously-attended 
meeting  of  exporters  from  this  consular  district,  which  meeting  we  convoked  to  dis- 
cuss this  tariff  question  and  the  best  method  of  raising  duties  on  cotton  embroideries. 

This  meeting,  so  to  say,  unanimously  pronounced  in  favor  of  the  specific-weight 
duty,  anyhow  on  the  supposition  that,  the  American  Government  be  inclined  to  a 
somewhat  reduction  of  dnties,  with  the  understanding  and  in  such  sense  that  the 
commoner  articles  be  not  taxed  higher  than  hitherto  even  if  thereby  the  finer  em- 
broideries, which,  however,  form  but  a small  part  of  the  total  exportation,  should  be 
taxed  lower  than  has  been  tbe  case  hitherto. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


493 


The  above  advantages  have  also  been  practically  tried  and  proved  since  France,  in 
the  year  1882/  for  same  reasons  which  now  call  for  a specific  duty  in  the  United  States, 
has  passed  over  from  the  ad  valorem  system  to  the  specific  weight  duty. 

The  French  administration  and  the  Swiss  merchants  are  equally  well  off  under  the 
new  system.  It  works  without  the  least  friction,  while  formerly  there  was  conflict 
after  conflict  and  disputes  about  customs  never  ceased. 

We  beg  to  point  out,  however,  that  we  recommend  the  specific  weight  duty  ouly 
under  the  supposition  that  a fair  transformation  of  the  ad  valorem  duty  takes  place — 
we  mean  such  a one  as  will  not  tax  any  higher  than  heretofore  the  bulk  of  the  im- 
portation of  embroideries,  and,  as  already  mentioned,  takes  the  average  value  of  the 
great  staple  articles  (the  mass  of  popular  goods)  as  basis  for  the  transformation,  with- 
out minding  that  the  goods  above  that  average  value  fare  better  and  those  below 
worse  than  hitherto. 

That  certainly  cannot  be  avoided,  but  will,  as  already  said,  not  impair  the  total 
proceeds  of  the  duties  on  embroideries. 

A second  question,  which  has  to  be  very  carefully  treated,  is  the  fixing  of  the  net 
weight  and  how  the  tare  shall  be  dealt  with. 

To-day  we  are  not  able  to  place  before  you  material  to  decide  this  matter,  but  we 
are  busy  collecting  it,  and  shall  take  the  liberty  of  informing  you  later  on  of  the  re- 
sults of  our  investigations. 

Meanwhile  we  beg  to  mention  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  also  has 
means  at  hand  to  procure  valuable  material  upon  the  ground  of  which  it  can  form  its 
own  opinion  regarding  the  correct  basis  for  the  transformation  into  the  weight  duty, 
namely,  if  orders  are  promptly  given,  that  alongside  with  declaration  of  value  the 
net  weight  also  be  declared  of  every  particular  shipment  to  the  States.  In  this  man- 
ner the  proportion  between  value  and  weight  might  be  ascertained  at  least  with  ap- 
proximate accuracy  in  the  course  of  a few  months  from  the  import  lists  of  the  custom- 
house/ 

For  a perfectly  reliable  result,  it  is  true,  the  total  value  and  total  weight  of  at  least 
a year’s  importations  should  be  known. 

As  regards  the  other  articles  of  our  industrial  district,  which,  among  the  exporta- 
tions to  the  United  States  have  to  be  taken  into  consideration,  we  readily  admit  that 
for  the  plain  tissues  the  number  of  threads  in  the  square  inch  forms  a rational  and,  in 
general,  easily  manageable  basis  for  fixing  duties,  but  this  thread  counting  is  any- 
how also  troublesome,  so  that  we  should  give  the  preference  to  a fair  rated  weight 
duty  also  for  the  plain  tissues. 

These  plain  woven  goods,  on  the  other  hand,  present  a much  more  insecure  basis 
for  ad  valorem  duties,  and  the  respective  difficulties  increase  with  figured,  dotted, 
or  sprigged  tissues. 

But  least  of  all,  we  repeat,  is  a sure  control  of  the  taxation  of  value  possible  with 
articles  of  such  manifold  complication  of  embroideries. 

Nevertheless  we  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  the  newest  proposal  lately  brought 
out  and  advocated  by  some  New  York  houses  of  fixing  duty  for  a certain  number  of 
stitches  and  the  width  of  material  contained  in  a shipment,  would  be,  with  regard  to 
possibility  of  control,  still  worse  than  the  present  ad  valorem  system  and  would  in 
practice  afford  still  less  security,  however  good  the  theory  looks  at  first  sight.  For 
if  with  the  ad  valorem  duty  a well  versed,  experienced  man  of  the  trade,  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  embroidery  market  and  its  fluctuations,  may  anyhow,  within  cer- 
tain limits,  estimate  the  market  value  of  the  goods,  it  is,  on  the  other  hand,  a fact 
that  even  practiced  designers  or  markers  cannot  possibly  find  out  (count)  exactly  the 
number  of  stitches  in  complicated  patterns  with  various  openwork,  in  finer  classes 
of  lace  and  embroidery,  not  to  speak  of  embroidered  curtains  and  other  tambour  work, 
embroideries  where  duty  by  the  stitches  is  altogether  out  of  question. 

And  then  in  cases  where  the  nature  of  the  patterns  would  allow  a control,  such  con- 
trol would,  if  entire  shipments  have  to  be  examined  not  merely  superficially,  require 
such  an  immense  deal  of  time  and  trouble  that  we  cannot  imagine  how  it  could  be  car- 
ried out  at  times  of  lively  trade  without  bringing  the  dispatch  of  arrivals  to  a dead  stop. 
The  widths  of  the  material  or  of  the  strips  of  a larger  shipment  furthermore  are  so 
different  and  manifold  that  an  effective  control  of  the  duty  for  the  material  would 
likewise  require  quite  an  exorbitant  expenditure  of  time. 

Moreover  the  calculation  of  the  respective  stitch  prices  would  not  only  be  a cou- 
tinually  fluctuating,  but  also  a thoroughly  uncertain  basis,  because  in  normal  times 
patterns  of  the  same  repeat  have  at  the  same  time  to  be  paid  very  different  wages 
for,  according  to  the  more  or  less  labor,  material  (thread)  which  the  same  number  of 
stitches  require  for  the  respective  patterns. 

At  present,  for  instance,  the  wages  for  £ goods  vary  from  33  to  40  cents  per  100 
stitches,  4 goods  from  28  to  35  cents  per  100  stitches,  according  to  the  peculiarities  of 
the  patterns. 

When  the  demand  for  workmen  (trade)  is  lively  the  difference  of  stitch  i>rices  for 
the  same  repeat  (according  to  quality  of  pattern)  can  increase  considerably  more,  and 


494  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


only  in  exceptionally  bad  times  the  minimum  price  may  for  a wjiile  become  unit 
price  for  each  repeat. 

To  the  above  we  must  add  that  very  often  the  buyers  here  themselves  do  not  know 
the  number  of  stitches  of  the  goods  which  they  buy,  nor  can  they  get  to  know  them, 
and  yet  they  would  be  obliged  to  state  them  and  be  responsible  for  the  correctness  of 
their  statement. 

In  short,  we  may  look  at  this  proposal  (duty  per  number  of  stitches  and  cloth  extra) 
from  whichever  side  we  like,  it  appears  to  us  altogether  incomprehensible  and  only 
fit  to  open  still  wider  the  gates  to  disputes  and  coufusion. 

We  say,  and  are  ready  to  prove,  that  this  system  of  levying  duties  in  embroideries 
escapes  partly  every  control,  but  under  all  circumstances  will  not  fail  to  require  an 
apparatus  in  the  long  run  insufferably  unwieldy,  complicated,  and  costly  both  on  the 
part  of  the  custom-house  administration  and  on  that  of  the  importing  merchants.  It 
would  likely  lead  to  the  fact  that  an  official  control  would  no  longer  exist. 

We  therefore  declare  principally  once  more  that  the  only  method  by  which  a cor- 
rect and  uniform  system  of  paying  duties  on  cotton  embroideries  can  be  secured  is  the 
pure  specific  weight  duty. 

Relying  as  we  do  with  full  confidence  for  the  mode  of  introducing  such  a duty  and 
its  calculation  on  the  fair  feelings  and  good  will  of  the  American  Government,  we  in- 
tend to  transmit  to  you  thereupon,  within  a few  weeks,  a more  detailed  memorial. 

Meanwhile  please  to  accept,  esteemed  sir,  this  general  disquisition  of  principles  in 
question  and  accept  the  assurances  of  our  respect  and  sympathy. 

The  president : 

E.  GONZENBACH. 

The  secretary : 

WARHTT4NN. 


[Cotton  embroideries.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington , December  16,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir  : Referring  to  my  communication  of  the  28th  ultimo,  inclosing  a 
copy  of  a dispatch  from  the  consul  at  St.  Galle,  relating  to  the  applica- 
tion of  specific  duties  to  cotton  embroideries,  I now  have  the  honor  to 
send  you  inclosed  a second  communication  from  said  officer,  dated  the 
20th  ultimo,  relating  to  the  same  subject. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

T.  F.  BAYARD. 


United  States  Consulate  at  St.  Galle,  Switzerland, 

November  20,  1885. 

Hon.  James  D.  Porter, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Sir  : I have  now  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  the  document  of  details  from  the 
“Commercial  Corporation  of  St.  Galle,”  addressed  to  this  consulate  on  the  17th  of 
this  month,  in  regard  to  cotton  embroidery  duty  matters,  which  was  spoken  of  in  my 
communication  to  you  in  No.  15,  dated  November  2,  1885. 

I have  the  honer  to  be,  your  obedient  servant, 

. PETER  STAUB, 

Consul. 


St.  Gallen,  November  17,  1885. 

Das  Kaufmannisclie  Directorium  to  the  Consul  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  St.  Gall: 

Esteemed  Sir  : If  we  now  take  the  liberty  of  laying  before  you,  briefly  told  and 
in  completion  of  our  address  of  the  22d  October,  the  material  by  us  collected  for 
an  eventual  transmutation  of  the  American  ad  valorem  duty  on  embroideries  and 
kindred  articles  into  a specific  duty  on  the  weight,  we  trust  we  need  not  assure  you 
that  by  no  means  we  claim  a right  to  encroach  in  any  way  on  the  internal  affairs  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

To  us  it  is  a matter  of  course  that  your  Government  will  at  any  time  fix  the  cub- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  495 

toms  on  our  goods  and  their  method  entirely  according  to  its  own  judgment  and 
opinion. 

But  we  believe  that  it  will  only  be  agreeable  and  serviceable  to  the  American 
authorities  who  have  to  settle  these  questions  if  they  get  from  us  the  data  and  in- 
formation necessary  to  clear  up  their  particulars. 

The  proper  starting  point  for  any  transmutation  of  an  ad  valorem  duty  into  a duty 
on  the  weight  is  evidently  the  ascertaining  of  the  average  value  of  the  article  to 
which  the  new  duty  has  to  be  applied. 

In  order  to  see  to  the  bottom  of  this  question  as  far  as  machine  embroideries  on 
cotton  (net  lacefground  excepted)  are  concerned,  we  have  in  the  first  instance  invited 
the  houses  here  which  export  these  goods  to  the  United  States  to  give  us  the  average 
value  of  their  respective  shipments  mom  1st  October,  1884,  till  30th  September,  1885, 
and  have  got  willing  information  from  nineteen  of  these  firms.  We  then  set  up  for 
the  machine  embroideries  (Hamburgs  embroideries  on  net  excluded)  5 categories, 
viz : very  common,  common,  medium,  good,  and  fine,  and  got  the  average  value  per 
kilogram  of  a number  of  patterns  of  every  particular  category  calculated  by  a special 
committee  selected  out  of  the  above  nineteen  firms. 

Besides  the  average  values  which  resulted  from  this  proceeding,  we  now  also  took 
into  consideration  and  account  the  percental  share  which  every  category  had  in 
the  total  amount  of  the  importations  of  machine  embroideries,  and  the  result  of  these 
combined  calculations  was  an  average  value  of  22.23  francs  for  one  kilogram  (net 
goods  excluded)  shipped  to  the  United  States. 

If  we  now  take  in  hand  the  statistical  surveys  of  the  traffic  between  Switzerland  and 
foreign  countries  which  have  been  published  since  1st  January,  1885,  we  find  that 
they  show  in  the  first  nine  months  of  this  year  a total  exportation  of  8,687  metrical 
hundredweights,  and  value  of  20,056,628  francs  of  machine  embroideries  shipped  to 
the  United  States,  which  makes  per  one  kilogram  almost  exactly  an  average  value 
of  23  francs. 

It  must  be  noticed  here  that  the  declarations  for  statistical  surveys  are  always  made 
according  to  the  somewhat  higher  insured  value  of  the  goods,  and  that,  agreeably  to 
prescription,  cost  of  carriage  to  the  frontier  has  to  be  included. 

Our  calculations,  therefore,  coincide  completely  with  the  reports  of  our  official  com- 
mercial statistics,  and  we  can  with  perfect  tranquillity  accept  them  as  reliable. 

Taking  now  into  consideration  that  by  levying  duties  by  the  weight,  frauds  are 
no  longer  possible,  we  are  on  our  part  convinced  that  the  receipts  of  the  American 
custom-house  would  not  be  prejudiced  or  injured  with  a duty  of  7 francs  per  kilo- 
gram or  60  American  cents  per  English  pound,  on  the  imported  machine  embroider- 
ies (Hamburgs).  Without  mentioning  the  decrease  of  expenditure  connected  with  the 
simplification  of  levying  and  controlling  the  duties,  all  the  while  the  popular  goods 
for  the  less  opulent  classes  of  society  would  not  suffer  from  any  increase  of  cost  worth 
mentioning. 

Of  course,  however,  we  would  only  be  glad  if  the  American  Government  would 
consent  to  favor  the  low-priced  staple  articles  still  more  by  reducing  the  duty  on 
embroideries  to  a rate  about  equal  to  that  of  the  European  industrial  states  which 
levy  duties  for  protection. 

We  think  that  the  machine  embroideries  on  net  should  be  taxed  separately,  partly 
on  account  of  their  higher  average  value,  partly  also  because  they  can  easily  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  embroideries  on  other  grounds  or  material,  such  as  cambrics,  jac- 
conets,  nainsooks,  muslins,  the  qualities  of  which  often  imperceptibly  pass  one  into 
another  of  these  materials. 

Our  calculations  show  the  average  value  of  machine  embroideries  on  net  to  be  about 
25  francs  to  26  francs  per  kilogram.  A duty  of  7.80  francs  per  kilogram,  or  70  cents 
per  English  pound,  on  these  net  embroideries  would  correspond  with  the  above-men- 
tioned tax  of  7 francs  per  kilogram,  or  60  cents  per  English  pound,  on  the  other  ma- 
chine embroideries. 

The  embroidered  net  (lace)  curtains  have,  according  to  our  calculations,  an  average 
value  of,  at  most,  20  francs  per  kilogram.  In  conformity  to  above-mentioned  pro- 
portions the  result  would  be  a weight  duty  of  6 francs  per  kilogram,  or  50  cents  per 
English  pound. 

Alongside  with  the  e mbroidered  curtains  we  would  range  all  the  other  lock-stitch 
(tamboured)  articles. 

Under  the  reign  of  a fair  weight  duty  we  would  allow  deduction  from  the  gross 
weight,  as  tare,  the  weight  of  the  cases  (boxes)  and  cartoons  only,  which  would 
greatly  simplify  the  dispatch  and  control  in  the  custom-house. 

With  regard  to  the  woven  cotton  goods  which  are  exported  to  the  United  States 
from  this  consular  district,  we  have  to  take  into  consideration  only  the  so-called 
plumetis  (spotted  aud  sprigged  muslins),  plain  muslins,  jacconnets,  and  nainsooks, 
both  white,  gray,  and  partly  colored,  and  some  handkerchiefs  woven  in  colors. 

Out  of  these  articles  the  plumetis  muslins  seem  qualified  for  a separate  position, 
which  we  would  tax  with  a uniform  weight  duty  equal  to  that  of  the  embroidered 
curtains,  as  their  average  value  per  kilogram  is  about  the  same. 


496 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


We,  however,  acknowledge  once  more  that  the  basis  of  the  number  of  the  threads 
per  square  inch  is  not  an  irrational  one  for  woven  goods,  but  we  believe  that  if  this 
basis  will  not  be  abandoned,  only  and  exclusively  the  weight  should  furthermore  be 
taken  into  consideration,  in  order  to  escape  here  also  all  taxation  disputes  and  in 
the  interest  of  a prompt  dispatch  in  the  custom-house. 

The  muslins  and  similar  tissues  which  count  up  to  100  threads  warp  and  weft  on 
the  square  inch  have  an  average  value  of  per  kilogram,  those  from  101  to  200  threads 
an  average  value  of  9 francs  per  kilogram,  those  above  200  threads  an  average  value 
of  12^  francs  per  kilogram.  The  tissues,  all  colored,  with  101  to  200  threads  have  an 
average  value  of  about  7 francs  per  kilogram. 

We  lay  these  figures  before  you  in  case  a change  of  the  system  in  taxing  these 
woven  articles  should  be  entered  into,  allowing,  however,  that  with  the  modest  share 
we  have  of  the  total  importation  of  woven  cotton  goods  we  can  scarcely  lay  much 
stress  upon  them. 

Having  now  submitted  to  you  with  full  frankness  the  relations  and  circumstances 
of  our  export  trade  with  the  United  States,  we  beg  to  express  the  pleasing  hope  that 
this  open  exposition  may  only  serve  for  the  best  of  the  hitherto  so  lively  intercourse 
of  our  district  with  the  United  States. 

With  pleasure  we  hold  ourselves  to  the  disposition  of  the  highly-respected  Ameri- 
can consul  here  for  any  future  similar  emergencies,  and  have  the  honor  to  sign,  with 
perfect  esteem, 

The  president  of  the  Board  of  Merchants, 

E.  GONZENBACH. 

The  secretary : WARHNANN. 


[Parrott  & Co.,  bags  and  bagging .] 

San  Francisco,  November  18,  1885. 

The  Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  United  States  Treasury , Washington : 

Dear  Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  of  August  1,  in  which  you 
ask  us  to  give  our  views  as  to  the  feasibility  of  u simplifying  the  tariff 
and  making  the  duties  specific  upon  imported  merchandise,  &c.,  we 
beg  to  say  that  we  consider  that  the  duties  of  the  custom-house  officials 
would  be  greatly  simplified,  and  the  business  of  honest  merchants 
would  be  carried  on  more  satisfactorily,  if  specific  rates  were  levied 
on  bags  imported  from  Calcutta. 

Under  the  present  laws  merchants  (and  especially  those  who  carry 
on  their  business  on  a straightforward  basis)  are  under  a disadvan- 
tage from  the  uncertainty  of  the  actual  cost  of  the  goods  on  arrival,  for 
the  following  reason,  viz : Goods  are  purchased,  say,  in  April,  May, 
June,  or  later ; they  are  shipped  in,  say,  December  or  January  following. 
If  the  price  paid  for  the  goods  be  higher  than  similar  goods  are  worth 
at  time  of  shipment,  the  duty  is  payable  on  the  price  actually  paid. 
But  should  the  price  paid  be  below  the  market  price  at  time  of  ship 
ment,  then  our  invoices  are  raised  to  the  latter  price,  and  duty  is  paid 
accordingly.  Sales  of  these  goods  are  frequently  made  before  they  are 
shipped ; but  such  sales  are  made  on  an  uncertain  basis,  for  we  cannot 
calculate  the  actual  cost  until  the  ship  carrying  the  goods  has  sailed. 
Thus  transactions  that  appear  to  be  perfectly  safe  at  the  time  they  are 
made  turn  out  to  result  in  a loss,  owing  to  an  advance  in  the  Calcutta 
market — an  event  which  we  are  entirely  unable  to  foresee. 

On  the  other  hand,  should  the  Calcutta  market  decline  after  our  pur- 
chases are  made,  and  prior  to  the  sailing  of  the  vessel  bringing  them 
forward,  we  are  at  a disadvantage  as  compared  with  unscrupulous  mer- 
chants, who,  in  such  an  event,  would  not  admit  that  they  bought  the 
goods  months  before  the  sailing  of  the  vessel,  but  would  invoice  them 
at  the  price  then  current. 

To  render  the  administration  of  the  revenue  laws  more  effective  and 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


497 


uniform  than  at  present;  to  enable  merchants  to  calculate  with  cer- 
tainty the  actual  cost  of  the  goods,  and  thus  sell  intelligently,  and  to 
prevent  the  honest  merchant  from  being  at  a disadvantage  as  com- 
pared with  his  unscrupulous  competitor,  we  take  the  liberty  of  suggest- 
ing that  specific  duties  be  levied  on  bags  and  bagging,  and  as  you  ask 
our  opinion  as  to  the  rates  that  should  be  levied  in  lieu  of  the  present 
ad  valorem  rates,  we  think  that  it  would  be  just  and  proper  to  let  the 
duty  on — 

Cents. 


Wheat-sacks,  12  oz.,  22  by  36 

Wheat-sacks,  20  by  36 

Ore-sacks,  14  by  24 

Bean-sacks,  18  by  30 

Potato-sacks,  29  by  30 

Burlaps,  up  to  16  oz 

Hop  cloth 

Woolpacks 


..per  bag..  1 

do 1 

do 1 

. . per  bag . . 1 

....do li 

per  yard . . 1 

...  do li 

4* 


The  bulk  of  the  shipments  consists  of  22  by  36  wheat-sacks,  of  which 
the  imports  in  1883-’4  were  28,816,000;  in  1884-’5,  23,738,000,  of  which 
we  had,  respectively,  7,082,000  and  3,000,000. 

Thanking  you  for  the  opportunity  of  expressing  our  views,  and  trust- 
ing that  a change  will  be  made  in  the  method  of  levying  duties  on  these 
goods, 

We  remain,  dear  sir,  yours  truly, 

PARROTT  & CO. 


[Nye  & Wait,  carpets.'] 

Auburn,  N.  Y.,  December  18,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning: 

Sir:  Inclosing  our  approval  of  the  sentiments  expressed  by  the 
National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers,  we  specially  call  your 
attention  to  that  portion  expressed  in  italics.*  Not  a pound  of  wool 
grown  in  this  country  is  used  in  the  goods  we  manufacture — ingrain 
carpets.  The  wools  used  in  the  manufacture  of  this  class  of  goods  come 
principally  from  Russia,  South  America,  the  East  Indies,  and  the 
Orient.  The  duties  imposed  on  these  wools,  if  removed,  would  mate- 
rially lessen  the  cost  of  the  manufactured  goods  to  the  consumer,  and 
in  our  opinion  increase  the  consumption. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

NYE  & WAIT. 


["The  British  Hosiery  Company.] 

Thornton,  Near  Providence,  R.  I., 

December  15, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir  : We  beg  to  inform  you  that  we  approve  of  the  policy  in  relation 
to  a revision  of  the  tariff  set  forth  by  the  National  Association  of  Wool 
Manufacturers,  in  response  to  your  circular  of  July  18. 

The  features  of  the  policy  set  forth  in  that  response  which  we  espe- 
cially approve  are : 

1st.  That  there  shall  be  no  change  at  present  in  the  existing  wool 

*The  words  in  italics  are,  “So  long  as  a duty  is  imposed  upon  wool.” 

S.  Ex.  72 32 


498  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

and  woolen  tariff,  nor  a general  tariff  revision  at  the  next  session  of 
Congress. 

2d.  That  in*  case  of  any  revision  of  the  tariff,  so  long  as  a duty  is  im- 
posed upon  wool , it  is  indispensable  for  the  prosperity  of  the  woolen 
manufacture  that  the  present  system  of  compound  duties  upon  woolens 
should  be  strictly  maintained. 

We  have  recently  established  ourselves  here,  having  removed  from 
England  with  our  machinery  and  work  people  (about  160  of  the  latter, 
and  a plant  worth  about  $60,000).  We  were  driven  to  this  step  by  the 
declining  of  our  trade  in  England,  brought  on,  as  we  believe , by  the 
mistaken  policy  of  “free  trade’7;  and  we  have  been  encouraged  to  come 
to  this  country  and  make  our  homes  here  by  your  protective  tariff  as  it 
at  present  exists,  under  which  we  can  build  up  a large  business  and 
pay  our  hands  from  20  to  40  per  cent,  higher  wages  than  we  paid  them 
in  England,  but  a reduction  in  the  tariff  would  be  disastrous  to  our  en- 
terprise. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

British  Hosiery  Company. 

B.  W.  COOPER,  President 


(P.  Jansen,  wool.) 

Fairbury,  Nebr.,  December  5,  1885. 
To  His  Excellency  Secretary  Manning, 

Washington , D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  Will  you  please  permit  me,  in  behalf  of  the  wool-growers 
of  the  State  of  Nebraska,  whom  I have  the  honor  to  represent,  to  add 
my  protest  against  any  further  agitation  of  the  tariff  question  during 
the  next  session  of  our  national  Congress  $ 

Our  industry  (the  production  of  wool)  has  been  seriously  embarrassed 
after  the  late  reduction  of  the  duties  on  this  staple.  Thousands  of  flock- 
masters  have  retired  from  the  business  and  sent  their  flocks  to  the 
shambles,  whose  natural  destiny  was  to  help,  by  their  increase,  utilize 
our  vast  grazing  lands.  During  the  past  six  months  confidence  seemed 
to  return  to  sheepmen  that  wool  would  at  least  go  no  lower  and  that 
they  had  a safe  basis  on  which  to  operate.  Without  tiring  you  with 
details,  which  from  my  Republican  standpoint  probably  would  not  co- 
incide with  your  views,  I simply  wish  to  say,  that  any  further  agitation 
of  the  vexed  question  would  be  of  incalculable  disaster  not  only  to  our 
own  interests,  but  also  to  those  of  the  whole  country. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  dear  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

P.  JANSEN, 

President  Nebraska  Wool-  Groicers ’ Association. 


[Crawford,  Cree  & Co.,  wool .] 

Glasgow,  December  4, 1885. 

Sir:  In  consequence  of  an  application  made  to  us  by  the  United  States 
consul,  Mr.  J.  H.  Underwood,  for  information  as  to  the  present  value  of 
Scotch  carpet  wools,  we  beg  respectfully  to  take  the  liberty  of  writing 
these  lines  in  the  hope  that  they  may  be  of  some  interest. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


499 


Two  years  ago  some  correspondence  passed  between  our  firm  and 
your  Department,  represented  then  by  the  late  Hon.  Mr.  Folger  and  Mr. 
Secretary  French,  on  the  subject  of  irregularities  practiced  by  shippers 
from  this  country  in  the  invoice  valuation  put  upon  these  wools. 

In  a letter  dated  October  19,  1883,  we  pointed  out  the  various  means 
by  which  your  tariff  was  evaded,  viz,  by  the  augmentation  of  the  price 
of  lower  priced  wools  and  depression  of  higher  priced  in  the  same  invoice, 
for  the  express  purpose  of  getting  both  admitted  at  the  low  duty  rates  ; 
for  example,  1,000  bales  Laid  Highland  Wool,  market  price  44$.,  could 
be  invoiced  at  4 f$.,  and  1,000  bales  White  Highland,  market  price  6Jd., 
could  be  entered  at  5f $.,  and  in  this  way  the  64$.  wool,  really  subject  to 
the  higher  duty,  got  admitted  a^  the  lower. 

This  dishonest  practice  can  be  carried  into  many  classes  of  carpet 
wools,  thus  carpet  Haslock,  market  price  of  which  was  at  the  time  8 J$.,  was 
invoiced  at  9 4$.  and  10 $.,  and  thus  a margin  was  left  for  purchasing 
further  quantities  of  64$.  White  Highland  and  passing  them  at  the  low 
duty  price  of  5J$.  Again, in  the  article  called  “Washed  White  High- 
land,” market  price  7 $.  to  8$ .,  the  Id.  grade  could  be  invoiced  at  8 $.,  and 
again  a margin  arrived  at  to  purchase  64$.  grade  and  invoice  at  5f  $. 

Another  question  arose : suppose  the  Glasgow  market  is  cleared  of 
this  article,  “White  Highland  wool,  at  5|$.,”  was  it  permissible  to  buy 
at  that  price  in  the  Highlands,  say,  for  example,  Inverness,  and  add 
the  carriage  as  a legitimate  charge,  without  raising  the  cost  price  of 
the  wool  ? 

Different  views  on  this  subject  seemed  to  be  entertained  on  your  side, 
and  no  definite  result  was  arrived  at,  the  correspondence  was  dropped, 
matters  remaining  in  the  same  most  unsatisfactory  position. 

We  have  no  information  to  give  that  such  practices  have  been  followed 
lately,  because  prices  of  carpet  wools  have  been  so  low  during  the  past 
year  that  large  quantities  have  been  shipped  at  the  low  duty  price, legiti- 
mately bought,  but  we  think  the  time  has  again  come  when,  owing  to 
reduced  stocks,  the  price  may  advance  to  64$.,  and  if  this  happens  the 
same  practices  will  undoubtedly  be  resorted  to  by  unscrupulous  export- 
ers, and,  as  a commencement,  we  know  of  wools  having  been  bought  in 
quantity  at  5J$.  in  the  country , and  the  carriage  to  this  port  added  in  in- 
voice, as  a legimate  charge,  without  increasing  the  cost,  which  practice 
our  correspondence  left  in  a doubtful  position,  and  honorable  merchants 
are  unwilling  to  run  any  risk  by  taking  the  chance  of  their  shipments 
being  passed  or  arrested.  The  cure  for  all  this  confusion  seems  to  us  a 
very  easy  and  simple  one,  viz,  to  put  a small  fixed  duty  upon  carpet 
wools,  a simple  and  comprehensive  expression,  embracing  all  wools 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  carpets.  The  duty  might  either  be  fixed 
at  cents  per  pounds,  irrespective  of  grades  or  prices,  or  if  that  should 
be  thought  objectionable,  let  it  be  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  a percentage 
on  each  invoice. 

This  would  relieve  your  valuators  at  the  ports  of  the  difficult,  and,  in 
many  cases,  almost  impossible  duty  of  fixing  the  values  of  different 
grades  of  wool,  and  the  whole  business  would  be  put  upon  a simple, 
intelligent,  and  practicable  footing.  We  would  most  respecfully  ask 
you,  sir,  to  submit  the  remarks  we  have  made  to  the  honorable  the 
chief  Secretary,  and,  in  hope  that  they  may  meet  with  some  considera- 
tion, 

We  remain,  most  respectfully,  yours, 

CRAWFORD,  CREE  & CO. 

Hon.  Thomas  F.  Bayard, 

Secretary  of  State , Washington , U.  S.  A. 


500  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[Cherry  juice  or  fruit  juice.] 

Brooklyn,  December  21, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington,  D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  : Availing  myself  of  the  invitation  extended  in  your  mes- 
sage as  to  suggestions  from  merchants,  I would  respectfully  call  your 
attention  to  the  article  so-called  cherry  juice,  which  is  allowed  to  come 
in  from  Germany  under  a merely  nominal  duty.  And  now,  in  view  of 
the  attitude  of  that  country  in  prohibiting  the  importation  of  our  hog 
products,  we  can  retaliate  in  a measure  by  charging  at  least  the  fifty 
cents  of  all  duty  now  exacted  from  all  wines,  as  this  article  in  question 
is  not  a cherry  juice  but  a cherry  wine,  as  it  is  the  result  of  fermenta- 
tion of  the  juice  of  the  black  cherry  of  Germany,  and  should  rank  as 
wine  and  pay  the  same  duty  as  other  wine. 

This  article  is  imported  in  very  large  quantities,  and  is  not  used  for 
any  legitimate  purpose,  and  is  mainly  sold  by  the  dealers  as  blackberry 
brandy  after  being  sweetened,  mixed  with  distilled  spirits,  and  flavored. 

Blackberry  brandy  is  a well-known  medicinal  agent,  often  recom- 
mended by  physicians,  and  the  use  of  this  decoction  of  so-called  black- 
berry brandy  deceives  the  people  and  defeats  the  object  of  the  doctor. 

It  is  also  extensively  used  in  the  adulteration  of  port  wine  and  in  the 
fabrication  of  imitation  wine,  on  account  of  its  cheapness;  consequently 
depriving  the  Government  of  the  import  duty  that  would  otherwise  be 
paid  on  greater  importations  of  wine,  if  this  article  was  put  on  a par  as 
to  import  duty  with  other  wines. 

You  will  be  surprised  when  you  learn  of  the  large  amount  of  this  so- 
called  cherry  juice  that  is  imported,  and  which,  as  stated,  is  used  for 
producing  a spurious  article.  If  a sufficient  duty  was  imposed  on  this 
cherry  wine,  which  is  its  proper  designation,  it  would  stimulate  the  culti- 
vation of  the  blackberry  to  such  an  extent  as  to  give  employment  to 
thousands  of  young  people  all  over  the  States,  and  at  the  same  time 
benefit  the  wine  interest  of  the  Pacific  Slope,  and  destroy  an  illegitimate 
trade  that  is  injuring  the  health  of  the  people. 

I have  no  personal  interest  in  this  matter  except  to  see  the  Govern- 
ment get  all  the  revenue  it  is  entitled  to. 

I have  the  honor  to  remain,  your  obedient  servant, 


[The  Wine  and  Spirit  Traders’  Society  of  the  United  States,  wines  and  liquors .] 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir  : In  accordance  with  the  terms  of  your  circular  letter,  we  have  the 
honor  to  lay  before  you  the  following  views  in  regard  to  the  best  method 
of  assessing  and  collecting  the  duties  on  wines,  spirits,  and  malt  liquors, 
and  to  the  rates  of  duties  thereon. 

In  regard  to  the  system  of  assessing  specific  duties  on  all  wines,  spirits, 
and  malt  liquors,  which  was  adopted  by  Congress  at  our  suggestion  in 
1875,  we  have  to  say  only  that  it  has  proved  entirely  satisfactory  to  the 
merchant  and,  we  believe,  to  the  Government ; that  it  is  inexpensive  to 
the  Treasury  and  beneficial  to  the  consumer. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


501 


We  earnestly  recommend  its  continuance,  and  deprecate  any  return 
whatever  to  ad  valorem  duties,  as  they  engender  endless  complications 
and  open  the  door  to  fraud. 

We  recommend  that  the  time  during  which  wines,  spirits,  and  malt 
liquors  are  allowed  to  remain  in  bond  be  made  unlimited,  and  that  duty  be 
assessed  and  collected  only  on  the  quantity  of  merchandise  withdrawn  for 
consumption,  subject  to  such  regulations  for  the  protection  of  therevenne 
as  may  be  provided  by  your  Department. 

The  principle  of  an  unlimited  bonding  period  has  been  thoroughly 
tested  in  England,  and  the  result  has  been  that  London  is  now  recog- 
nized as  the  bonded  warehouse  of  the  world,  and  the  merchants  who 
want  to  find  old  spirits  and  wines  go  to  the  London  Docks  to  look  for 
them.  The  adoption  of  the  principle  here  would  soon  put  New  York  in 
the  same  position. 

We  make  this  recommendation  on  the  further  ground  that,  if  the 
principle  be  recognized  that  duty  is  due  and  payable  only  on  such  quan- 
tity of  merchandise  as  goes  into  consumption  in  the  country,  the  con- 
sumer will  be  provided  with  a far  better  quality  of  wines,  spirits,  and 
malt  liquors  than  he  could  otherwise  get.  This  would  increase  con- 
sumption and  the  revenue  would  be  correspondingly  increased ; it 
would  also  improve  the  tastes  of  our  people,  and  would  encourage  bet- 
ter and  more  sensible  methods  of  consumption.  Thus  would  be  formed 
habits  of  moderate  drinking,  that  the  experience  of  the  world  has  taught 
us  are  the  only  radical  cure  for  intemperance. 

We  recommend  the  abolition  of  all  penal,  warehousing,  and  trans- 
portation bonds,  on  the  ground  that,  as  the  merchandise  is  in  the  ab- 
solute possession  of  the  Government,  it  is  a useless  hampering  of  the 
business  of  the  merchant  to  force  him  to  give  bonds  for  the  payment 
of  duty,  when  he  cannot  obtain  possession  of  his  property  until  the 
duty  is  paid.  On  the  same  principle,  the  importer  or  buyer  should  be 
entitled  to  have  his  goods  transported  in  bond  immediately,  without 
further  complications,  to  such  port  of  entry  as  may  suit  the  necessities 
of  his  trade.  It  is  beyond  our  province  to  suggest  here  the  various 
plans  that  might  be  adopted  in  lieu  of  these  irritating  and  practically 
useless  bonds $ but  it  is  evident  that  many  simple  and  safe  plans  could 
be  devised  to  relieve  the  merchant  in  this  respect.  For  instance,  when 
goods  are  entered  for  consumption  before  the  entry  is  liquidated  (an 
exceptional  occurrence),  a deposit  .in  excess  of  the  estimated  duty  might 
be  required,  as  is  done  now  for  spirits. 

We  suggestthat  the  merchant  should  not  be  required  to  leave  his  office 
and  appear  personally  at  the  custom-house  to  confirm  verbally  an  oath 
that  he  has  already  signed.  His  signature,  which  could  be  registered 
at  the  custom-house,  should  have  as  much  weight  there  as  it  has  on 
his  checks  at  his  bank,  where  his  personal  presence,  even  for  very  large 
amounts,  is  not  required. 

We  recommend  the  abolition  of  the  stamp  at  present  affixed  to  im- 
ported wines,  spirits,  and  malt  liquors,  as  it  is  of  no  benefit  to  the  reve- 
nue or  the  buyer ; it  is  a useless  expense  to  the  former,  and  for  the  latter 
it  is  no  protection,  since  it  often  serves  as  an  aid  to  fraud,  thereby  oper- 
ating to  the  disadvantage  of  the  honest  dealer. 

We  recommend  a provision  of  law  permitting,  under  such  regulations 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  your  Department,  the  sale  to  vessels  of  all 
nationalities  of  foreign  wines,  spirits,  and  malt  liquors  to  be  consumed 
at  sea  without  payment  of  duty.  This  would  give  us  a large  trade  that 
is  now  lost  to  us  by  the  present  regulations,  which  force  foreign  vessels 
to  buy  their  stores  abroad,  when  they  would  prefer  to  get  them  here. 


502  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Under  the  present  regulations  goods  coming  into  the  port  of  New 
York,  destined  for  certain  southern  ports,  must  be  transported,  if  trans- 
shipped in  bond,  over  the  railway  lines  of  a certain  company,  the  only 
one  that  is  bonded.  We  recommend  the  bonding  of  more  railway  and 
steamship  lines,  so  that  merchants  may  be  relieved  of  the  heavy  tax 
now  imposed  by  that  monopoly. 

We  recommend  a law  forbidding  the  vaporization  of  any  mash  in  any 
building  other  than  a legally  registered  distillery. 

We  recommend  the  abolition  of  consular  certificates  on  the  invoices 
of  all  wines,  spirits,  and  malt  liquors,  as  these  certificates  are  of  no  ben- 
efit to  the  Government,  and  are  an  unnecessary  expense  and  cause  de- 
lay to  the  merchant;  as,  for  instance,  in  Burgundy,  whence  invoices 
have  to  be  sent  to  Lyons  or  Havre  for  certification. 

We  recommend  also  that  fees  be  abolished,  and  that  duties  be  paid 
in  certified  checks,  or  by  some  other  system  recognized  in  the  particular 
port  of  entry  for  the  safety  of  the  funds  of  the  merchant  and  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  Government. 

We  recommend  that  the  rate  of  duty  on  foreign  spirits  be  fixed  at  $1 
per  gallon  entered  for  consumption,  or,  in  other  words,  at  about  the 
same  as  the  tax  on  domestic  distilled  spirits,  and  proportionally  for 
spirits  imported  in  bottles,  but  no  additional  duty  should  be  imposed 
on  the  bottles. 

We  make  this  recommendation  because  we  believe  that  this  rate  is 
the  best  that  could  be  made  in  the  interest  of  the  Government  and  our 
trade;  but,  feeling  that  our  views  will  hardly  be  shared  by  Congress  or 
the  American  distiller,  we  suggest  a rate  of  $1.50  per  gallon  entered  for 
consumption,  that  being  the  rate  with  which  the  distilling  interests  of 
the  country  have  expressed  themselves  satisfied. 

We  recommend  a duty  of  25  cents  per  gallon  entered  for  consumption 
on  all  still  wines  in  casks,  and  a proportional  duty  on  such  wines  im- 
ported in  glass. 

We  believe  that  this  rate  would  very  soon  increase  the  consumption 
of  American  wine,  and  that  it  would  enable  the  producer  to  find  for  his 
goods  a market  that  is  now  lost  to  him ; but,  for  the  reasons  mentioned 
in  the  preceding  paragraph,  we  suggest  that  the  rate  on  still  wines  be 
restored  to  40  cents,  as  agreed  upon,  in  1875,  by  our  society  and  the 
American  wine-makers.  The  change  to  50  cents,  made  by  the  tariff  of 
1883,  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  express  desires  of  any  portion  of 
the  trade,  but  was  made  in  obedience  to  the  suggestion  of  misinformed 
enthusiasts. 

We  recommend  a duty  of  no  more  than  $4  per  dozen  of  so-called  quart- 
bottles  of  sparkling  wine,  and  a proportional  rate  on  larger  or  smaller 
bottles,  with  no  additional  duty  to  be  collected  on  the  bottles  or  pack- 
ages. We  are  of  the  opinion  that  this  rate  will  afford  ample  protection 
to  the  American  manufacturer  of  sparkling  wines,  and  that  it  would  not 
in  any  way  diminish  the  consumption  of  his  production. 

We  recommend  the  following  rates  of  duty  on  ale  and  beer  and  other 
malt  liquors  : Ten  cents  per  gallon  of  282  cubic  inches  in  wood,  and  15 
cents  per  gallon  in  glass  bottles,  the  additional  duty  of  5 cents  per  gal- 
lon in  glass  bottles  being  in  lieu  of  any  separate  or  additional  duty  on 
bottles. 

We  recommend  also  a specific  rate  of  duty  on  ginger  ale  and  soda 
water. 

We  take  the  liberty  of  inclosing  an  extract  from  the  report  made  by 
the  English  commissioners  of  customs  in  the  year  1857,  addiug  merely 
that,  in  their  report  of  1885,  they  state  that  the  experience  of  twenty- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


503 


eight  years  has  only  confirmed  the  views  given  below.  We  respectfully 
solicit  your  careful  attention  to  their  arguments  and  statements,  as 
especially  bearing  upon  our  recommendations. 

We  remain,  sir,  yours,  respectfully, 

Charles  McK.  Leoser,  president. 

Chas.  Renauld,  treasurer  and  secretary  pro  tempore , 
of  Renauld  & Niederstadt. 

E.  C.  La  Montagne,  of  E.  La  Montagne  & Son. 

A.  B.  Purdy,  of  Purdy  & Nicholas. 

F.  Pares  Osborn,  of  John  Osborn,  Son  & Co. 
Alex.  D.  Shaw  & Co.,  by  Alex.  D.  Shaw. 

C.  A.  Du  Yivier,  of  Du  Yivier  & Son. 

Henry  Nichols  & Co.,  by  Henry  F.  Nichols. 

S.  McCullagh,  of  McCullagh  & Co. 

Chas.  W.  Lawrence,  of  H.  Webster  & Co. 
Charles  Graef,  by  F.  Drag,  attfy. 

Timothy  Stevens. 

Gonzalez,  Byass  & Co.,  by  Charles  H.  Pye. 

Chas.  F.  Schmid  & Peters. 

John  Burke,  of  Edward  & John  Burke. 

W.  Kessler,  of  G.  Ammick  & Co. 

Lawrence  Myers  & Co. 

Galvrey  & Cared o. 

F.  O.  de  Luyties. 

All  members  of  the  council. 


[Extracts  from  the  first  report  of  the  commissioners  of  Her  Majesty’s  customs  on  the  customs.  1857.  J 

It  is  obvious  that  the  commerce  of  this  country  could  never  have  attained  its  actual 
enormous  magnitude  unless,  to  the  greatest  conceivable  enterprise  on  the  part  of  mer- 
chants, had  been  added  the  most  liberal  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Crown  to  give 
every  possible  facility  for  the  rapid  and  simple  dispatch  of  business.  Even  the  large 
reductions  of  duty  which  have  been  sanctioned  year  by  year  would  have  been  ren- 
dered comparatively  inoperative  if  tedious  formalities  and  needless  restrictions  on  the 
part  of  the  revenue  officers*of  the  Executive  had  been  suffered  to  interfere  with  the 
generous  intentions  of  the  legislature.  For  a long  series  of  years,  however,  it  has 
been  the  aim  of  this  department  to  afford  to  trade  all  possible  facilities  which  can 
be  rendered  compatible  with  the  security  of  the  revenue,  and  these  facilities  are  still 
in  course  of  extension  from  year  to  year. 

It  became  early  apparent  that  the  exaction,  immediately  on  landing,  of  duties  pay- 
able on  goods  which  yet  might  be  many  months  on  hand  before  they  were  entirely 
disposed  of,  was  a heavy  extra  tax  upon  the  importer,  and  required  considerable  addi- 
tional capital  to  meet  it.  The  first  relief  afforded  was  by  the  Act  of  12  Charles  II.  c. 
13,  A.  D.  1660,  which  permitted  the  merchant  to  give  bond  for  payment  of  the  duty 
within  nine  months,  in  lieu  of  paying  at  once  and  receiving  the  usual  mitigation. 
In  other  words,  it  offered  him  his  choice  between  nine  months’  credit  or  10  per  cent, 
discount.  The  obvious  inequity  and  impolicy  of  levying  revenue  alike  upon  articles 
consumed  in  the  country  and  articles  re-exported  to  foreign  lands,  also  soon  presented 
itself  to  the  minds  of  o nr  legislators ; and  in  the  same  year  (by  12  Charles  II.  c.  4) 
the  exporting  merchant  was  permitted  to  claim,  or,  “ drawback,”  the  whole  amount 
of  duty  which  he  had  paid  into  the  exchequer  in  the  case  of  silk,  linen,  and  tobacco, 
and  half  the  amount  in  case  of  all  other  articles,  a distinction  which  subsequent  tar- 
iffs largely  modified  and  at  length  wholly  swept  away. 

The  “warehousing  (or  bonding)  system,”  however,  with  its  various  branches,  affords 
the  greatest  facility  and  presents  the  greatest  practical  improvement  yet  introduced. 
It  allows  imported  goods  to  be  “warehoused”  under  due  precautions,  and  for  a re- 
newable period  of  five  years,  leaving  to  the  merchant  the  privilege  of  paying  duty 
only  when  the  goods  are  removed  for  actual  consumption,  or  of  escaping  the  payment 
of  duty  altogether  by  removing  them  for  exportation.  The  first  approach  to  this 
now  perfected  system  is  traceable  in  the  year  1700,  when  the  wrought  silks  of  India 
and  Persia  (the  use  Of  which  was  prohibited  at  home)  were  permitted  to  be  placed  in 


504  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


fit  warehouses  for  exportation,  ou  due  security  beiug  given  by  the  merchant  for  car- 
rying out  such  destination.  In  1709  pepper  was  allowed  to  be  deposited  in  “approved” 
warehouses  on  payment  of  half  “subsidy,”  the  other  half  being  demanded  when  the 
article  went  into  consumption,  or,  in  case  of  its  re-exportation,  not  being  claimed  at 
all.  In  1~42  rum  was  allowed  to  he  warehoused  under  Crown  locks,  and  on  bond  be- 
ing given  for  the  payment  of  duty  when  taken  out  for  home  consumption ; and  shortly 
afterwards  tea,  rice,  and  tobacco  were  admitted  to  the  same  privilege.  A general 
“ warehousing  act  ” was  passed  in  1803,  extending  the  system  with  a niggard  and  re- 
luctant hand,  both  as  regards  localities  and  articles.  Various  subsequent  enactments 
greatly  enlarged  the  privileges  and  facilities  then  granted ; and  in  the  year  1825* 
when  the  customs  laws  were  consolidated  by  Mr.  Hume’s  eleven  acts,  the  system 
had  nearly  attained  its  present  form  and  extension.  Now  nearly  every  port  of  any 
size  in  the  kingdom  contains  licensed  warehouses  for  bonding  ; and  every  year  new 
warehouses  are  thus  licensed  by  the  board  after  due  examination  with  reference  to 
the  security  they  offer  against  fraud,  and  after  taking  a bond  from  the  proprietor  of 
the  warehouse  in  a sum  large  enough  to  cover  the  risks  of  the  Crown  on  the  goods  to 
be  deposited  therein. 

The  privileges  and  facilities  now  included  under  the  warehousing  regulations  are 
many  and  great,  and  a large  majority  of  them,  including  some  of  the  most  important, 
have  been  for  many  years  enjoyed. 

1.  The  premises  are  under  Crown  locks,  but  access  to  them  is  freely  permitted  with 
the  knowledge  and  in  the  presence  of  the  officers  of  the  customs,  for  the  purpose  of 
sampling,  for  sale,  or  any  other  legitimate  object. 

2.  Not  only  is  the  merchant  only  liable  to  pay  duty  when  he  actually  removes  his 
goods  for  home  consumption,  but  in  the  case  of  such  articles  as  are  liable  to  natural 
waste  or  deterioration  from  leakage  or  evaporation,  &c. — as  sugar,  wines,  spirits, 
tobacco,  &c. — he  is  only  called  upon  to  pay  upon  the  quantity  remaining  at  the  time 
of  removal,  thus  saving  the  duty  on  any  deficiency  which  may  have  arisen  from  nat- 
ural causes,  and  liable  to  no  suspicion  of  fraud. 

3.  Though  no  actual  manufacture  is  permitted  to  be  carried  on  in  bond,  yet  many 
processes  scarcely  distinguishable  from  manufacture,  designed  to  improve  the  articles 
warehoused,  and  render  them  more  easily  or  conveniently  salable,  are  allowed.  Un- 
der such  regulations  as  the  board  may  deem  fit  for  the  security  of  the  revenue,  large 
packages  may  be  divided  into  smaller  ones;  wine  and  spirits  may  be  “racked”  from 
hogsheads  and  pipes  into  quarter  or  half-quarter  casks  ; wine  may  be  sweetened  or 
“fortified”;  wines  and  spirits  may  also  be  vatted  and  blended,  and  even  bottled, 
though  for  exportation  only. 

Of  course  privileges  so  valuable  as  those  we  have  enumerated  were  certain  to  be 
largely  employed,  and  to  give  rise,  with  the  expansion  of  trade,  to  a demand  for  a 
largely  increased  warehousing  accommodation.  This  has  been  especially  the  case  in 
the  port  of  London.  In  1850  it  was  found  that  the  provision  afforded  by  the  various 
docks  (to  which  the  Victoria  Docks  have  since  been  added), * extensive  as  it  was, 
was  still  inadequate  to  the  requirements  of  commerce ; and  in  February,  1851,  your 
lordships  directed  that  privileges  analogous  to  those  enjoyed  by  the  old  bonded 
warehouses,  but  subject  to  varying  and  special  limitations,  should  be  granted  to  cer- 
tain sufferance  wharves  on  the  south  side  of  the  river,  which  were  already  in  posses- 
sion of  some,  though  comparatively  limited,  rights  of  bonding.  A similar  order  was 
subsequently  issued  in  favor  of  specified  localities  on  the  north  bank ; and  at  present, 
besides  the  docks  and  “ legal  quays,”  landing  privileges  are  exercised  by  no  less  than 
87  “ sufferance  wharves,”  of  which  35  have  bonding  warehouses  and  15  have,  or  may 
obtain,  the  privilege  of  receiving  all  goods,  except  silks,  tobacco,  and  goods  ware- 
housed for  exportation  only.  Besides  these,  your  lordships  have  sanctioned  the  ex- 
tension of  bonding  privileges  for  wine  and  spirits  to  private  vaults  situated  within 
500  yards  from  any  part  of  the  river  between  London  Bridge  and  Brewers’  Quay — a 
concession  of  which  the  trade  has  not  been  slow  to  avail  itself.  Already  six  vaults, 
capable  of  holding  in  the  aggregate  above  10,000  pipes,  have  been  approved,  and 
others  are  in  course  of  preparation. 

It  has  long  been  desired  both  by  the  merchant  and  the  Government  to  render  this 
country  the  great  commercial  emporium  of  the  world — the  central  rendezvous  where 
goods  of  all  sorts  should  come,  not  only  for  consumption,  but  for  distribution  like- 


* These  docks  were  thrown  open  in  November,  1855,  but  are  still  (1857)  in  an  in- 
complete condition.  The  principal  basin,  about  100  acres  in  extent,  is  already  dim  out 
and  in  use.  In  the  short  time  which  has  elapsed  since  the  opening,  these  docks  have 
been  used  by  1.542  vessels  with  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  540,782  tons,  and  the  follow- 
ing articles  have  been  deposited  in  the  bonding  warehouses  and  vaults;  16,000  casks 
of  wine,  1,300  casks  of  rum,  800  casks  of  brandy,  5,300  cases  of  brandy,  2,500  casks  of 
various  foreign  spirits,  2,500  casks  of  British  spirits  for  exportation,  19,600  bags  of 
rice.  6,800  bags  of  sugar,  besides  other  sundries,  amounting  in  the  whole  to  557,887 
packages  up  to  November  30,  1856. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


505 


wise.  To  effect  this  object,  a large  relaxation  of  custom-house!  regulations  has  been 
introduced,  so  as  to  facilitate  transshipment  in  our  ports  and  transit  through  the 
country  by  land  from  port  to  port.  In  the  ordinary  course  it  was  the  practice  for 
such  goods  to  come  hither  duly  entered  for  exportation  only,  and,  after  undergoing 
the  examination  necessary  to  satisfy  the  officer  of  the  integrity  of  the  transaction  and 
the  nature  of  the  article  to  be  warehoused,  to  wait  a convenient  opportunity,  on  the 
occurrence  of  which  they  were  cleared,  bond  being  given  for  their  actual  exportation. 
Under  this  system  a very  large  transit  trade  has  arisen,  which,  however,  it  was  thought 
desirable  and  found  practicable  to  extend.  By  your  lordships’  minute  of  April  23, 
1850,  founded  on  a report  of  Lord  Granville’s  commission  of  inquiry,  regulations  were 
established  under  which  goods  may  be  simply  transshipped  fromthe  import  to  the  ex- 
port vessel  in  the  same  port,  and  perhaps  lying  alongside.  In  this  case,  provided  the 
merchandise  in  question  be  duly  reported  as  “in  transit,”  the  importer  is  allowed  to 
take  out  both  his  inward  and  outward  documents  at  once,  and  the  goods  may  be  re- 
moved direct  as  desired,  subject — unless  fraud  be  suspected — only  to  such  a trivial 
examination  as  may  suffice  to  verify  the  correctness  of  the  entry  for  statistical  pur- 
poses. The  few  years  that  have  elapsed  since  this  system  was  established  have  been 
enough  to  show  how  great  a boon  it  must,  have  been.  The  amount  of  merchandise 
thus  dealt  with  during  the  last  five  years  has  been  as  follows: 

Declared  value. 


1851  £2,965,335 

1852  3, 706, 662 

1853  5, 278, 074 

1854  5,046,348 

1855  3,582,664 


The  decrease  in  1855  is  chiefly  attributable  to  a falling  off  in  the  article  of  spirits 
hitherto  transmitted  through  Great  Britain.  But  the  aggregate  increase  in  the  num- 
ber of  this  class  of  transactions  still  continues.  The  transshipments  in  London  were 
1,944  in  1855,  and  2,912  in  1856.  The  number  of  packages  transshipped,  including  a 
large  quantity  of  the  most  valuable  articles,  increased  from  250,000  in  1855  to  392,000 
in  1856. 

In  the  case  of  ^oods  which  require  to  be  shipped  from  a different  port  to  that  at 
which  they  arrived,  they  are  allowed  to  be  forwarded  by  railway,  under  such  regu- 
lations as  the  safety  of  the  revenue  may  suggest.  A large  trade  is  now  carried  on  in 
this  way  between  Hull  and  Liverpool,  and  instances  have  occurred  of  goods  being 
forwarded  in  transit  from  Grimsby  to  Liverpool,  and  from  Hartlepool  to  Hull ; but 
up  to  this  date  no  other  railway  company  has  complied  with  the  specified  require- 
ments. 

The  attention  of  the  commissioners  of  customs  has  also  been  sedulously  directed  to- 
wards the  removal  of  all  troublesome  and  unnecessary  forms  in  the  documentary  routine 
required  from  masters  of  vessels  and  importers,  and  towards  simplifying,  facilitating, 
and  expediting  such  as  could  not  be  dispensed  with.  For  the  more  prompt  dispatch  of 
business,  some  officers  of  the  long  room  are  required  to  attend  at  8 o’clock  in  the  morn- 
ing during  8 months  in  the  year,  and  at  9 o’clock  during  the  remaining  4 months ; and 
in  urgent  cases  of  steam  vessels  carrying  perishable  goods,  their  report  is  allowed  to 
be  taken  by  officers  on  the  station  as  early  as  5 or  6 o’clock  a.  in.,  when  the  discharge 
of  cargo  may  also  commence.  The  rectification  of  errors  in  reports  and  entries  is  also 
made  much  easier  than  formerly.  “Permission  to  amend,”  which  originally  had  in 
all  cases  to  be  applied  for  to  the  Board,  can,  under  a series  of  minutes,  beginning  in 
1841,  be  granted  by  the  collector  or  the  landing  officers  wherever  the  error  is  slight 
or  the  difference  of  duty  involved  less  than  10s.  (or  20 s.  in  the  case  of  ad  valorem  du- 
ties where  the  undervaluation  does  not  exceed  50  per  cent.).  The  number  of  these 
small  errors  and  inaccuracies  is  very  great,  and  the  delay  and  trouble  spared  by  the 
new  arrangements  may  be  estimated  from  the  fact  that  during  the  last  year  (1856) 
416  cases  were  thus  summarily  disposed  of  in  London,  which  in  former  times  would 
have  all  come  before  the  board. 

In  order  to  avoid  the  risk  of  loss  by  the  habit  of  intrusting  sums  for  the  payment 
of  duties  to  young  clerks  who  had  to  pass  through  crowded  thoroughfares,  and  also 
the  possible  facilities  and  temptations  to  peculation,  arrangements  were  made  two 
years  ago  by  which  in  London  checks  might  be  received  in  lieu  of  cash.  The  checks 
thus  received  are  of  two  kinds,  usual  drafts  upon  city  bankers,  which  are  taken  by 
the  receiver-general’s  clerks  for  “ acceptance”  before  the  entry  to  which  they  relate 
is  definitively  passed,  and  “ bank  paper”  or  “ customs  notes,”  which  is  a special  docu- 
ment supplied  by  the  Bank  of  England  on  deposit  of  the  equivalent  amount,  and  is 
payable  only  for  customs  duties.  The  extent  to  which  merchants  have  availed  them- 
selves of  this  privilege  is  shown  by  the  proportionate  account  to  be  very  large.  It 
will  be  seen  that  though  the  largest  number  of  payments  are  made  in  cash, "the  largest 
amounts  are  paid  in  bankers’  checks  or  customs  notes. 

Many  minor  facilities  afforded  year  by  year  both  to  the  mercantile  and  the  geueral 


506  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


public  might  be  enumerated,  but  we  have  touched  upon  all  the  principal,  with  one 
exception ; this  exception,  however,  is  a most  important  one.  We  refer  to  the  entire 
abolition  of  all  gratuities  or  fees.  The  merchant  is  now  subjected  to  no  tax  of  any 
sort  beyond  the  actual  customs  duty  levied  by  act  of  Parliameut ; whereas  in  former 
days  this  constituted  only  a portion,  and  sometimes  not  the  principal  portion,  of  the 
various  payments  he  was  called  upon  to  make  before  he  could  obtain  possession  of  his 
goods.  These  payments  consisted  in  part  of  fees  received  by  the  various  officers  im- 
mediately concerned  in  the  transaction  of  his  business,  and  in  part  of  fines  inflicted 
for  erroneous  entries  and  trifling  contraventions  of  a most  voluminous  and  compli- 
cated law. 

Under  the  influence  of  the  various  circumstances  upon  which  we  have  touched  in 
the  preceding  pages — the  simplification  of  the  tariff  the  reduction  of  duties,  and  the 
facilities  afforded  to  merchants  and  shippers — the  commerce  of  Great  Britain  has 
shown  a marvelous  increase,  and  the  revenue  a still  more  marvelous' elasticity.  It  is 
not  here  the  place  to  expound  in  any  detail  the  effect  of  specific  fiscal  changes  (as  to 
the  wisdom  of  which  at  the  time  considerable  difference  of  opinion  existed)  on  the 
trade,  the  consumption,  and  the  taxation  of  the  country,  but  we  may  be  permitted 
to  draw  attention  to  a lew  general  results  which  the  statistics  of  the  last  twenty  or 
twenty-five  years  forcibly  exposed.  Between  the  years  1831  and  1834  the  first  very 
extensive  steps  were  taken  in  the  removal  of  prohibitions  and  the  reduction  and  re- 
mission of  customs  duties.  These  were  followed,  in  1842  and  1844,  by  still  bolder  ad- 
vances in  the  same  direction,  and  every  successive  year  has  seen  further  progress,  cul- 
minating in  the  vastly  reduced  and  simplified  tariff  of  1853.  The  net  aggregate  of 
these  reductions  amounts  to  above  ten  millions.  Yet,  notwithstanding,  the  customs 
revenue  has  scarcely  varied  for  the  last  twenty  years,  ranging  steadily  from  twenty- 
two  to  twenty-three  millions.  In  1835  the  gross  income  was  £23,149,000 ; in  1855  it 
was  £23,482,000. 

With  the  reduction  of  duties,  and  the  removal  of  all  needless  and  vexatious  re- 
strictions, smuggling  has  greatly  diminished  and  the  public  sentiments  with  regard 
to  it  have  undergone  a very  considerable  change.  The  smuggler  is  no  longer  an  ob- 
ject of  general  sympathy  or  a hero  of  romance,  and  people  are  beginning  to  awake  to 
the  perception  of  the  fact  that  his  offense  is  less  a fraud  on  the  revenue  than  a rob- 
bery of  the  fair  trader.  , 


(Herbert  Myrick,  tobacco. ) 


December  19, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  United  States  Treasury , 

Washington , D.  G. : 

Dear  Sir  : Pardon  the  liberty  I take  in  inclosing  for  your  inspection 
some  suggestions  from  the  New  England  Homestead  of  this  date  rela- 
tive to  the  tobacco  tariff. 

The  inclosure  marked  No.  1 indicates  a simple  means  for  providing  a 
safeguard  against  fraud  in  goods  imported  into  the  United  States.  The 
matter  has  been  commended  by  several  Congressmen. 

In  No.  2 are  contained  several  proposed  substitutes  for  a portion  of 
the  existing  tobacco  schedule  of  the  tariff  act  of  1883.  Whatever  may 
be  said  of  the  rates  of  duty  therein  mentioned,  permit  me  to  urge  upon 
your  attention  the  peculiar  wording  of  the  draft  prepared  by  the  officers 
of  the  New  England  Tobacco  Growers’  Association,  as  shown  at  para- 
graphs marked  A and  B in  No.  2 inclosure.  It  appears  to  me,  after  an. 
exceedingly  thorough  investigation,  that  this  phraseology  is  what  is 
wanted;  that  importers  will  have  to  pay  the  higher  rate  on  wrappers  in- 
tended by  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  existing  but  defective  law,  while 
the  clause  u excepting  fillers  and  filler-grades 79  will  permit  the  importa- 
tion at  the  lower  rate  of  Havana  leaf  of  those  grades,  which  our  growers 
and  dealers  want  admitted  at  the  lower  rate  because  thejT  are  used  in 
connection  with  our  domestic  wrappers. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

HERBERT  MYRICK, 

Agricultural  Editor. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


507 


No.  I. 

The  evasions  of  the  tariff  law  by  importers  of  Sumatra  tobacco  have  already  cost 
the  Government  several  millions  of  dollars.  The  evasion  is  accomplished  by  a pecul- 
iar packing  of  the  leaf.  This  practice  is  doubtless  common  with  importers  of  other 
goods.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  frame  a law  that  shall  be  iron  clad.  To  guard 
against  such  fraud  and  provide  for  any  fault  of  phraseology  in  any  section,  the  tariff 
act  of  1883  (section  7)  contains  this  proviso : 

“ Provided,  That  if  any  packages,  sacks,  crates,  boxes,  or  coverings  of  any  kind 
shall  be  of  any  material  or  form  designed  to  evade  duties  thereon,  or  designed  for  use 
otherwise  than  in  the  bona  fide  transportation  of  goods  to  the  United  States,  the  same 
shall  be  subject  to  a duty  of  100  per  cent,  ad  valorem  upon  the  actual  value  of  the 
same.” 

This  provision  applies  to  coverings.  Now  suppose  it  could  be  amended  by  insert- 
ing after  “ the  United  States  ” this  clause : “ or  if  the  contents  of  any  packages,  sacks, 
crates,  boxes,  or  bulks  shall  be  packed  or  arranged  in  any  manner  or  form  designed 
to  evade  duties  thereon.”  This  would  prevent  the  extensive  evasions  which  have 
been  practiced  in  tobacco  importation  since  1883.  Nor  do  we  see  how  the  proposed 
amendment  can  be  objected  to,  as  it  merely  provides  in  a general  way  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  provisions  already  a part  of  the  existing  tariff  law.  The  Homestead,  Spring- 
Held,  Mass. , December  19,  1885. 


No.  2. 

THE  SUMATRA  IMBROGLIO. 

The  executive  committee  of  the  New  England  Tobacco  Growers’  Association  met  in 
Hartford  on  Thursday  last.  Vice-President  S.  G.  Hubbard,  of  Hatfield,  Mass.,  and 
H.  H.  Austin,  of  Suffield,  Conn.,  reported  on  their  conference  with  the  New  York 
Leaf  Tobacco  Board  of  Trade.  The  board  had  adopted  this  draft  of  a tariff  law : 

“ Sec.  2.  Leaf  tobacco  of  which  20  per  cent,  or  more  of  one  package  is  used  for 
wrappers,  and  also  when  it  is  the  product  of  different  countries — packed  together  in 
one  package — if  not  stemmed,  $1.50  per  pound ; if  stemmed,  $2  per  pound,  upon  the 
whole  contents  of  such  package. 

“ Sec.  3.  All  other  tobacco  in  leaf,  unmanufactured  and  not  stemmed,  20  cents  per 
pound ; if  stemmed,  25  cents  per  pound.” 

An  analysis  of  this  law  shows  that  in  practice  it  means  a tariff  of  $1.05  per  pound 
on  unstemmed  wrappers,  and  $1.16  on  stemmed  wrappers,  and  fillers  free.  The  em- 
ployment of  the  term  “used”  may  also  permit  evasion.  The  delegates  could  not 
recommend  it,  but  submitted  a draft,  which,  after  thorough,  practical,  scientific, 
legal,  and  grammatical  consideration,  and  several  minor  connections,  was  adopted  in 
the  following  language : 

A.  — “ Sec.  2.  All  tobacco  in  leaf  (excepting  fillers  and  filler  grades),  also  all  mixed 
bulks,  bales,  boxes,  or  packages  of  wrappers  and  other  grades,  if  not  stemmed,  $1.50 
per  pound ; if  stemmed,  $2  per  pound,  upon  the  whole  contents  of  each  bulk,  bale,  box, 
or  package. 

B. —  “Sec.  3.  All  other  tobacco  in  leaf,  if  not  stemmed,  25  cents  per  pound;  if 
stemmed,  30  cents  per  pound.” 

The  more  this  law  is  studied  the  more  acceptable  it  will  be  found  to  all  interests. 
It  contains  no  “ per  cent,  clause  ” which  would  enable  it  to  be  so  easily  evaded.  Fill- 
ers, not  wrappers,  are  the  pivot  of  this  law.  Every  grade  of  leaf  above  the  grades 
known  to  the  trade  as 1 1 fillers  ” and  “ filler  grades  ” will  have  to  pay  $1.50  per  pound. 
Even  if  the  packages  contain  a mixture  of  different  grades  it  must  all  pay  $1.50  per 
pound,  if  above  the  two  grades  specified.  And  this,  too,  without  excluding  the  Ha- 
vana fillers  and  filler  grades,  the  admission  of  which  at  the  lower  rate  has  been  the 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  an  iron-clad  law.  Hence  this  draft  will,  I think,  prove  en- 
tirely acceptable  to  the  trade  and  to  manufacturers.  It  simplifies  the  whole  matter, 
without  conflicting  with  the  Havana  interests.  All  the  appraiser  has  to  decide  is 
whether  a bale  or  a number  of  bales  are  fillers  or  filler  grades  or  not.  If  they  are  not, 
either  in  whole  or  in  part,  then  the  whole  pays  the  higher  rate.  The  law  is  plain, 
unequivocal,  is  “upon  the  whole  contents,”  covers  mixed  packages  (whether  of  the 
same  or  different  countries  is  not  material),  and  serves  the  purpose  sought  without 
antagonizing  the  interest  upon  the  thrift  of  which  depends  to  a considerable  degree 
the  market  and  prices  of  our  domestic  wrappers. 

The  strongest  possible  argument  in  favor  of  a revision  of  the  tobacco  tariff  is  found 
in  the  decision  of  the  Falk  case.  In  July,  1883,  G.  Falk  & Bro.  imported  1,400  bales 
of  Sumatra  leaf,  and  paid  75  cents  p£r  pound  duty  on  it,  protesting  that  it  should  be 


508  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


admitted  at  the  35-cent  rate.  They  sued  the  Government  to  recover  the  extra  40 
cents  per  pound,  amounting  to  $80,000.  The  case  was  tried  in  the  United  States  circuit 
court  at  New  York,  last  week,  before  Judge  Hoyt  G.  Wheeler  and  a jury.  Without  tak- 
ing any  other  testimony  than  the  plaintiff’s,  the  judge  decided  in  their  favor.  The  Gov- 
ernment may  carry  the  case  to  the  Supreme  Court.  This  decision  knocks  the  last 
peg  from  under  the  existing  tariff.  That  law  means  35  cents  per  pound  duty  in  fact 
and  in  law,  as  it  has  proved  in  practice.  It  is  said  that  the  decision  in  this  case  will 
lead  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  recommend  Congress  to  so  revise  the  tobacco 
schedule  as  to  make  it  operative.  This  case  going  against  the  Government  means  a 
new  tobacco  tariff. 

A New  York  leaf-merchant,  apropos  of  the  new  tobacco  tariff,  makes  this  good 
suggestion  : To  decide  or  define  what  is  a filler  and  what  is  a wrapper,  two  respecta- 
ble tobacco  merchants  should  be  selected  by  our  Government  to  assist  the  custom- 
house appraisers  at  every  port  where  foreign  tobacco  enters.  The  appraisers,  as 
well  as  the  tobacco  merchants,  should  be  required  to  give  sufficient  security  for  the 
honest  performance  of  their  duty,  and  if  found  dishonest  the  bail  or  security  should 
be  forfeited. 

The  tobacco  growers  of  Lancaster,  Berks,  Chester,  and  York  Counties,  Pennsyl- 
vania, held  a convention  at  Lancaster,  Pa.,  Monday,  December  14.  The  attend- 
ance was  very  large ; indeed  it  was  the  largest  gathering  of  farmers  ever  held  in  the 
county.  Jacob  M.  Frantz  presided,  and  E.  N.  Phelps,  president  of  the  New  Eng- 
land Tobacco  Growers’  Association,  spoke.  The  following  resolution  was  passed : 
“ Resolved,  That  all  leaf-tobacco  contained  in  any  package,  bale,  or  box,  or  in  bulk, 
any  part  of  which  is  suitable  for  wrappers,  if  not  stemmed,  shall  pay  a duty  of  $1.50 
per  pound ; if  stemmed,  $2  per  pound  on  the  whole  contents  of  such  package,  bale,  or 
box,  or  bulk  of  tobacco.” 

A committee  of  twenty  was  appointed  to  draw  up  a bill  according  to  the  resolution, 
which  will  be  presented  to  Congress  as  early  as  possible. 


[Sumatra  tobacco.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington , January  6,  1886. 

Sir : I have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  herewith  for  your  informa- 
tion and  consideration  a copy  of  a dispatch  to  this  Department  from 
Mr.  Bell,  our  minister  at  The  Hague,  concerning  a reported  change  in 
the  mode  of  packing  Sumatra  tobacco,  by  which  it  is  said  the  customs 
laws  of  this  country  are  evaded. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  D.  PORTER, 

Acting  Secretary. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


No.  82.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

The  Hague, , December  14,  1885. 

Sir  : The  growing  trade  between  this  country  and  the  United  States  in  Sumatra 
tobacco,  at  a time  when  other  industries  are  tranquil,  seems  a question  of  so  much  im- 
portance to  those  connected  with  the  culture  of  tobacco  in  the  United  States  that  I 
have  thought  it  proper  to  invite  your  attention  to  certain  features  of  the  trade  at  a 
time  when  measures  are  likely  to  be  considered  by  Congress  regarding  a change  in 
the  tobacco  tariff. 

Tobacco  growing  or  culture  as  an  industry  in  Sumatra  dates  from  1865. 

There  are  no  figures  at  hand  to  show  to  what  extent  it  was  cultivated  between  the 
years  1865  and  1876. 

During  the  year  1876  29,000  bales  were  grown  in  Sumatra.  In  1883  the  number  of 
bales  had  increased  to  100,000. 

The  tobacco  is  brought  from  Sumatra  to  Amsterdam,  where  it  is  sold  at  public  auc- 
tion at  stated  periods  during  the  year. 

The  following  statement,  according  to  the  last  consular  record,  shows  the  growth 
of  the  trade  : 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


509 


Sumatra  tobacco  exported  from  Amsterdam  to  the  United  States. 


Quarter  ending — 


September,  30, 1883. . 
December  31, 1883.  A. 

March  31, 1884  

-June  30, 1884 


Value. 

Quarter  ending — 

Value. 

$5,  789  86 

September  30, 1884 

$415,  759  47 

32,  720  26 

Depember  31, 1884  

713,  767  78 

117,  625  06 

March  31, 1885 

290, 153  00 

437,  541  88 

June  30, 1885 

547,  951  00 

The  two  features  to  which  I would  invite  your  attention  are — 

(1 ) The  rapid  growth  of  the  trade. 

(2)  The  fact  that  an  enterprising  correspondent  of  a leading  commercial  journal  of 
this  country  (Handelsblad)  recently  asserted,  in  a communication  addressed  to  that 
journal,  that  the  American  Government  “as  we  know  have  already  commenced  to 
place  restrictive  provisions  upon  the  dimensions  of  the  leaf,  by  which  means  Sumatra 
tobacco  was  indirectly  struck.  But  it  appears  that  our  industry  in  Sumatra  has  al- 
ready found  the  means  to  escape  from  this  effort  to  prejudice  its  interests  by  a pre- 
paration or  a modified  packing.” 

In  other  words  this  enterprising  journalist  openly  asserts  that  there  has  been  a 
systematic  “nesting”  process  practiced  in  the  packing  of  Sumatra  tobacco  with  a 
view  to  evade  the  customs  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  which,  according  to  the  cor- 
respondent’s statement,  has  proved  successful. 

According  to  this  statement,  this  change  in  the  manner  of  packing  was  only  made 
after  the  enactment  of  laws  in  the  United  States  which  fixed  different  duties  on  leaves 
of  different  dimensions. 

It  has  occurred  to  me  that  an  examination  of  the  packages  of  Sumatra  tobacco  re- 
ceived in  the  United  States  will  show  whether  such  a system  of  “nesting”  actually 
exists. 

At  all  events  the  assertion  seems  to  me  to  be  of  sufficient  importance  to  bring  it 
to  the  attention  of  the  Department,  so  that  you  may  take  such  steps  as  may  seem 
proper. 

This  systematic  modification  in  the  packing,  which  seems  to  date  its  origin  from 
recent  changes  in  our  tobacco  tariff,  may  be  the  principal  cause  of  this  great  increase 
in  the  trade 

I have  also  heard  it  stated  that  leaves  of  certain  dimensions,  which  are  subject  to 
a high  rate  of  duty  under  our  law,  have  been  packed  with  leaves  of  smaller  dimen- 
sions, which  #re  subject  to  a lower  rate  of  duty,  in  such  a manner  as  to  subject  the 
entire  package  to  the  payment  of  the  low  rate  of  duty. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

ISAAC  BELL,  Jr. 

Hon.  Thomas  F.  Bayard, 

Secretary  of  State. 


[Henry  Bischoff  & Co.,  rice .] 

Charleston,  S.  C.,  October  19,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

/Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  C. : 

Sir  : Your  circular  letter  of  September  2,  addressed  to  us,  and  mak- 
ing inquiries  as  to  the  evasions  of  existing  tariff  laws  on  imported  mer- 
chandise, and  also  desiring  suggestions  as  to  the  revisions  of  existing 
tariff,  came  duly  to  hand. 

We  highly  appreciate  the  distinguished  honor  you  have  done  us  in 
selecting  us  as*  parties  to  become  exponents  of  these  matters  for  our  im- 
mediate part  of  the  country,  and  we  would  have  answered  the  letter 
sooner  but  found  it  necessary  and  proper  to  consult  other  persons  of 
experience  and  interested  in  the  business  of  which  we  now  write. 

The  rice  culture  and  importation  is  the  great  branch  of  protected  in- 
dustry which  interests  us  particularly  here,  and  after  carefully  submit- 
ting your  circular  letter  of  September  2 to  many  individuals,  and  some 


510  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

public  bodies,  connected  therewith,  we  now  answer  with  the  following 
replies  and  suggestions.  And  the  information  which  we  give  you  is 
derived  from  the  practical  knowledge  and  experience  of  ourselves  and 
others  as  rice  planters  and  merchants. 

In  the  first  place,  we  will  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing observations  relating  to  the  systematic  evasion  of  the  present 
protective  tariff  laws,  which  until  recently  was  a great  and  threatening 
evil,  and  unless  it  had  been  checked  would  soon  have  nullified  and 
rendered  of  no  practical  avail  the  governmental  tariff  protection.  This 
injustice  and  wrong  was  accomplished  by  importations  made  under  the 
guise  of  u granulated  rice.”  And  the  manner  of  accomplishing  this 
evasion  was  twofold. 

First.  The  importers  claimed  that  this  was  an  unenumerated  article 
and  therefore  dutiable  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty.  But  this  is 
clearly  error,  as  rice  is  an  enumerated  article  and  specially  named  and 
provided  for. 

Heretofore,  under  the  rulings  of  your  Department,  this  u granulated 
rice  ” has  been  admitted  in  very  large  quantities,  and  is  used  by  the  brew- 
ers of  the  country  for  brewing  purposes.  The  Department,  however, 
until  1883,  required  that  such  rice  should  be  really  what  it  purported 
to  be,  namely,  a u granulated  rice,”  which  had  been  subjected  to  a regular 
granulating  process,  which  reduced  it  to  small  particles;  and  so  long  as 
this  ruling  was  adhered  to,  the  injury  to  the  rice  interests  was  not  great 
as  the  rice  imported  under  it  was  of  an  uniformly  small,  granulated,  and 
broken  character,  fit  for  brewing  and  some  few  other  purposes,  but  not 
dangerous  to  the  rice  interests  for  general  marketable  purposes. 

Secondly.  The  above  ruling  was  taken  advantage  of  and  made  use  of 
for  illegal  purposes  and  to  evade  the  entire  spirit  of  the  tariff.  Bice,  as 
is  well  known,  becomes  more  or  less  broken  in  the  usual  milling  process, 
and  much  of  it,  after  milling,  runs  from  one-quarter  to  seven-eighths 
grains. 

Construing  the  ruling  as  to  u granulated  rice”  broadly,  some  one  or 
more  importers  in  New  York  urged  that  it  covered  all  kinds  of  broken 
rice,  and  taking  advantage  of  this  improper  application  of  the  tariff 
law  these  parties  had  been  importing  rice  which  is  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  the  ordinary  rice  of  commerce;  and  the  officials  in  New  York 
have  allowed  them,  in  this  guise,  to  import  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem 
duty  rice  which  is  practically  almost  whole  rice,  and  which  has  never 
been  through  any  u additional  granulating  process”  whatsoever. 

To  substantiate  this  latter  statement,  we  would  refer  you  to  the  re- 
port of  August  10,  1885,  of  U.  S.  Consul  Albert  Loening,  in  which  he 
distinctly  states  that  this  so-called  u granulated  rice”  is  nothing  more 
or  less  than  broken  rice  made  in  the  ordinary  process  of  milling,  and 
not  subjected  to  any  additional  granulating  process,  as  required  by  the 
previous  ruling  of  the  Department. 

This  was  the  great  evil  threatening  the  rice  interests  of  the  country, 
but  we  hope  that  it  has  been  effectually  and  finally  removed  by  the  cir- 
cular of  November,  1885,  which  seems  to  us  a very  liberal  construction 
of  the  law  so  far  as  it  affects  the  interests  of  brewers  and  other  im- 
porters. And  we  think  it  is  also  in  rigid  adherence  to  the  spirit  of  the 
former  rulings  of  the  Department,  namely,  that  the  rice  imported  as 
u granulated  rice”  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  must  have  been 
subjected  to  a regular  additional  granulating  process,  by  which  the 
grain  has  been  reduced  to  an  uniform  small  size,  say  a size  similar  to 
the  smallest  rice  milled  in  the  mills  of  this  country,  such  as  sample  sent 
you  marked  u small  rice.” 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


511 


And  in  this  connection  we  would  suggest  that  such  size  be  subjected 
to  some  seive  test  and  standard,  to  be  perfected  and  approved  by  the 
Department,  after  conference  with  the  representatives  of  the  rice  in- 
terests. 

This  would  not  interfere  with  the  importation  of  the  granulated  rice 
for  the  brewers,  which  is  perhaps  legitimate  and  does  not  particularly 
interfere  with  the  rice  interests,  but  it  would  prevent  all  evasions  of 
the  law  as  to  broken  rice,  by  which  the  rice  interests  have  been  jeopar- 
dized and  the  tariff  protection  practically  done  away  with. 

Secondly,  with  regard  to  tariff  revision,  we  make  the  following  sug- 
gestion, which  we  think  experience  in  the  rice  business  will  justify  and 
which  will  give  the  American  rice-millers  practical  protection  against 
their  competitors  in  Great  Britain,  Germany,  and  Holland. 

For  the  purpose  of  making  clear  our  views,  and  of  acquainting  you 
with  the  various  forms  which  rice  takes  under  the  different  processes  of 
manufacturing, we  send  you  samples  of  the  various  grades  and  shapes. 

They  are,  rough  rice  or  paddy ; mill-ground  rice,  containing  about 
50  per  cent,  of  rough  or  paddy ; mill-ground  rice,  containing  about  25 
per  cent,  of  rough  or  paddy ; mill  -ground  rice,  free  from  rough  or 
paddy ; rice  chaff ; rice  pounded  in  pestle  (or  other  machinery  which 
answers  the  same  purpose),  with  the  rice  flour;  pounded  rice  sifted 
from  the  flour,  but  not  polished ; whole  or  best  grade  rice,  polished ; 
middling  rice ; small  rice ; rice  meal  or  flour ; rice  flour ; rice  polish. 

Now,  the  rice,  as  it  passes  through  the  various  manufacturing  or  im- 
proving processes,  is  supposed  to  increase  in  value,  and  the  tariff  is 
based  upon  this  increase  in  value,  and  is  supposed  to  fix  rates  of  duty 
in  proportion  to  the  value  of  rice  in  its  various  states ; but,  as  a matter 
of  fact,  the  rates  on  the  various  classifications  under  the  existing  tariff 
are  not  in  the  proper  proportions,  and  do  not,  in  all  the  grades,  allow  a 
proper  difference  of  duty  in  due  proportion  to  value.  As  an  instance  of 
this,  we  call  to  your  attention  the  duty  on  rough  rice,  and  then  the  duty 
on  its  products,  to  wit : 

100  bushels  of  rough  or  unhulled  rice  equals  4,400  pounds  (present  duty  1£ 


cents) $55  00 

Product  of  above  after  milling : 

2,200  pounds  cleaned  whole  rice,  duty  2.25 $47  25 

700  pounds  broken  rice,  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem 2 80 

500  pounds  rice  meal  (no  importation  duty). 

900  pounds  chaff  (no  ad  valorem  duty). 

200  pounds  offal  (no  ad  valorem  duty). 

50  05 


In  favor  of  foreign  millers 4 95 


Or,  in  other  words,  if  the  domestic  miller  desired  to  import  the  rough 
rice  and  prepare  it  for  market,  he  would  be  placed  at  a disadvantage, 
as  compared  with  the  foreign  mills,  of  nearly  $5  per  100  bushels. 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  the  present  tariff  is  so  arranged  that  it  dis- 
criminates fatally  against  any  home  milling  of  foreign  rice,  and  accord- 
ingly causes  all  such  rice  .to  be  first  carried  to  European  ports  to  be 
milled,  and*  then  reshipped  to  this  country  cleaned  or  partially  cleaned. 

It  takes  no  argument  to  show  that  this  both  strikes  at  our  milling  in- 
terests and  also  prevents  that  direct  trade  which  should  be  of  such  com- 
manding importance  to  us. 

Any  revision  of  the  tariff  should  correct  these  evils,  and  in  this  line 
we  suggest  the  following  rates  as  calculated  to  effect  the  object  desired : 

Cleaned  rice  (present  tariff  2.25  cents  per  pound) , say  2.25. 

TJncleaned  rice  (present  tariff  1 and  1.50  cents  per  pound)  say  1.75. 


512  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Paddy  or  rough  rice  (present  duty  1 and  1.25  cents  per  pound)  say  1. 

Under  the  present  ruling,  uncleaned  rice  embraces  all  mixtures  of 
paddy  or  rough  rice,  and  rice  with  the  hull  taken  off.  Now,  rice  is  usu- 
ally shipped  in  this  way  from  the  East  Indies,  because  it  does  not  heat, 
and  it  is  properly  considered  paddy  or  rough  rice.  That  is,  they  mix  the 
paddy  or  rough  rice  with  the  hulled  rice  in  various  proportions,  running 
from  25  to  75  per  cent,  of  the  latter. 

Now,  the  mixture  has  to  go  again  through  the  mill  stones,  and  is  really 
in  the  crude  state,  and  therefore  should  not  pay  the  present  duty  of  1 
and  1.50  cents  per  pound  as  uncleaned  rice,  but  should  be  classed,  as  in 
Europe,  with  the  paddy  or  rough  rice,  and  the  tariff  on  it  should  vary, 
as  it  contains  more  or  less  rice  free  from  hull.  So  that  we  should  sug- 
gest the  additional  grades  for  duty  : 


Paddy  mixed  with  25  per  cent,  hull  rice.. 1. 10 

Paddy  mixed  with  50  per  cent,  hull  rice 1.20 

Paddy  mixed  with  75  per  cent,  hull  rice 1. 25 


But  of  course  these  rates  could  be  fixed  after  future  careful  and  in- 
telligent comparison  and  thought. 

If  these  changes  are  made  in  the  tariff  the  ad  valorem  duty  on  “ gran- 
ulated rice”  might  be  abolished  entirely,  so  that  our  own  mills  could 
import  the  rough  rice  and  manufacture  this  product.  But  if  it  shall  be 
deemed  advisable  to  allow  this  import,  then  we  suggest  fixed  duty  in- 
stead of  ad  valorem  duty,  and  name  .50  per  pound  as  a proper  and  ade- 
quate fixed  duty  on  “granulated  rice.”  This  is  all  that  we  at  present 
feel  authorized  in  suggesting  to  you  except  to  urge  upon  you  the  im- 
portance of  the  rice  interest,  both  from  a labor  and  a manufacturing 
standpoint.  Millions  of  dollars  of  capital  are  invested  in  this  great  in- 
dustry, and  thousands  of  our  rural  colored  laboring  people  are  depend- 
ent upon  it  for  a livelihood.  Under  this  view  of  the  matter  we  cannot 
do  otherwise  than  to  urge  on  you  this  due  care  of  the  matter,  both  by 
properly  enforcing  the  laws  at  present,  in  the  wisdom  of  the  country, 
existing  for  its  protection,  and  also  by  looking  towards  more  intelligent 
shaping  of  such  laws  in  the  future. 

The  duty  on  rice  is  made  necessary  by  the  existence  of  our  present 
protective  tariff,  which  makes'  living  dearer  and  thereby  increases  the 
money  price  of  labor. 

There  is  no  agricultural  product  of  this  country  in  the  production  of 
which  the  cost  of  labor  enters  so  largely  as  it  does  in  the  production  of 
rice. 

The  labor  on  an  acre  of  rice  amounts  to  $25  a year,  on  the  average, 
and  the  nature  of  the  soil  and  character  of  the  growth  prevent  the  use 
of  such  machines  as  have  been  applied  to  the  farming  of  other  grains. 

If  we  had  no  protective  tariff  at  all  we  think  rice  could  take  care  of 
itself  as  it  did  before  1860,  but  the  cost  of  producing  it  has  been  greatly 
enhanced  by  the  changes  that  have  occurred  since  that  time. 

Our  position  in  this  matter  is,  that  while  we  do  not  advocate  protect- 
ive tariffs,  still,  as  long  as  the  policy  of  the  United  States  is  in  favor 
their  continuance,  we  deem  it  but  just  that  the  small  portion  ot  the  tariff 
laws  in  favor  of  the  industries  of  our  part  of  the  country  should  be 
maintained  and  enforced. 

We  prefer  no  tariffs  at  all,  but  if  there  are  tariffs,  then  let  us  get  our 
share  of  them. 

Apologizing  for  this  intrusion  on  your  time,  but  excusing  it  by  the 
fact  that  you  did  us  the  honor  to  call  on  us, 

We  remain,  dear  sir,  your  obedient  servants, 

H.  BISCHOFF  & CO. 

Samples  will  he  transmitted  separatelg  to  Congress. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


513 


[James  S.  Kirk  & Co.,  soap,  alkalies , alcohol, 


Chicago,  December  12, 1885. 

Dear  Sir  : We  beg  to  offer  a few  suggestions  relating  to  the  present 
rate  of  tariff  on  alkalies  for  fa  vor  of  your  consideration. 

We  are  probably  the  largest  consumers  of  these  products  in  America, 
and  consequently  need  not  apologize  for  a strong  personal  interest  in 
their  market  value.  But  we  would  not  presume  to  solicit  aid  from  you 
for  a purely  selfish  and  personal  end.  The  present  duty  on  alkalies  is 
unnecessary  for  many  reasons. 

In  the  first  place  soap  from  America  ought  to  be  foremost  in  every 
foreign  market  on  account  of  the  peculiar  facilities  for  its  manufacture 
which  are  here  enjoyed.  The  animal  and  vegetable  fats  can  be  ob- 
tained nowhere  else  in  such  quantities  or  with  so  much  ease  5 the  rosins 
which  enter  largely  into  the  composition  of  soap,  as  well  as  many  otter 
ingredients  are  here  in  profusion,  and  there  is  no  known  method  of 
manufacture  which  cannot  be  employed  here  as  well  as  in  any  part  of 
the  world.  The  fact  remains  that  American  manufacturers  are  shut  out 
of  foreign  markets  and  chiefly  because  of  the  heavy  duties  on  alkalies. 
Foreign  makers  do  not  suffer  from  the  same  disadvantage,  and  accord- 
ingly are  in  a position  to  offer  their  goods  to  their  home  consumers  at 
prices  which  cannot  be  met  on  this  side; 

Another  feature  of  the  case  is  that*  under  present  laws  regulating 
these  duties  no  home  industry  is  protected,  since  practically  all  the 
caustic  soda,  soda  ash,  sal  soda,  &c.,  come  from  England. 

In  this  connection  we  may  mention  that  alcohol  is  largely  employed 
in  the  manufacture  of  transparent  soaps  as  well  as  for  many  other  prac- 
tical and  useful  purposes.  Its  immense  value  in  the  arts  is  well  known. 
It  seems  to  us  that  the  duty  on  alcohol  when  thus  employed  in  the  arts 
and  manufactures  should  not  be  the  same  as  when  the  article  is  devoted 
to  its  ordinary  uses.  But  however  desirable  a change  would  be  from  our 
standpoint,  we  do  not  assume  to  speak  with  so  much  confidence  on  this 
part  of  the  subject. 

We  are  writing  our  State  Representatives  in  Congress,  requesting 
them  to  examine  carefully  into  the  facts  with  a view  to  urging  legislation 
on  the  tariff  laws  so  far  as  they  affect  the  commodities  mentioned,  and 
we  have  ventured  to  express  the  hope  that  they  will  interest  themselves 
in  this  matter  during  the  present  winter  session. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 


J.  S.  KIRK  & CO. 


Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. 


[Lord  & Higlat,  shooks.  ] 

Baltimore,  December  11, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  Treasury: 

Dear  Sir:  We  respectfully  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  great 
depression  now  existing  in  the  foreign  cooperage  business  of  our  coun- 
try, the  larger  portion  of  which  is  done  with  the  island  of  Cuba. 

This  business  has  in  years  past  given  employment  to  several  thou- 
sand men  in  thirteen  different  States. 

S.  Ex.  72 33 


514  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETATY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

The  States  most  interested  are  Virginia,  West  Virgina,  Pennsylvania, 
Maryland,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  and  Maine. 

A few  years  ago  there  were  annually  exported  from  this  country 
about  1,000,000  of  hogshead  shooks,  1,000,000  pairs  heads,  and  16,000,000 
* of  hoops  to  island  of  Cuba,  but  by  the  gradual  substitution  of  English 
bags  the  quantity  of  shooks  used  had  declined  two  years  ago  to  about 
750,000.  This  was  brought  about  by  the  extreme  low  prices  at  which 
bags  were  offered  by  English  manufacturers,  and  the  low  import  duty 
into  Cuba,  being  only  15  cents  on  5 bags,  against  45  cents  on  one  hogs- 
head, but  planters  were  very  generally  opposed  to  bags,  and  if  no 
action  had  been  taken  by  the  Spanish  Government,  cooperage  would 
have  held  its  own  and  bags  would  soon  gone  out  of  use. 

Two  years  ago  there  was  an  unprecedented  increase  of  sugar  produc- 
tiqp  all  over  the  world,  and  the  Cuban  planters  being  in  great  distress 
financially,  called  on  their  Government  for  some  relief,  and  one  of  tbe 
first  measures  of  relief  granted  was  a reduction  of  the  export  duty  on 
sugar,  when  shipped  in  bags,  duty  on  sugar  in  hogsheads  remaining 
same  as  before,  making  a saving  of  about  one-fourth  cent  per  pound 
over  what  sugars  could  be  shipped  at  in  hogsheads. 

Under  this  new  condition  of  things  the  consumption  of  hogsheads  fell 
off  last  year  to  5110,000,  or  just  about  half  of  former  years,  and  hoops  in 
the  same  ratio. 

The  only  reason  why  a larger  proportion  of  bags  were  not  used,  it 
was  impossible  to  at  once  change  the  mode  of  handling,  transporting, 
storing,  and  shipping  such  a vast  quantity  in  bags. 

By  careful  estimate  the  quantity  of  shooks  to  be  used  this  year  will 
not  exceed  250,000,  or  half  the  number  of  last  year,  and  unless  some- 
thing is  speedily  done  to  prevent,  the  whole  cooperage  industry  of  our 
country  will  soon  be  destroyed. 

The  value  of  cooperage  formerly  exported  would  exceed  $3,000,000, 
and  required  about  300  vessels  (one  trip  each)  to  carry  it,  at  freightage 
of  $334,000. 

If  the  cooperage  business  is  destroyed,  our  West  India  fleet  of  vessels 
will  be  driven  from  the  sea,  as  they  will  have  no  cargoes  to  carry  out, 
and  it  will  be  impossible  for  them  to  go  to  Cuba  in  ballast  and  compete 
with  the  English  u ocean  steam  tramps,”  and  in  this  event  it  will  come 
to  pass  that  England  will  furnish  the  packages  and  the  freightage  of 
the  sugar  and  molasses  produced  by  Cuba,  and  when  the  fact  is  well 
understood  that  about  nine- tenths  of  all  the  sugar  and  molasses  is 
brought  to  our  country  the  seriousness  of  the  situation  will  be  better 
appreciated. 

As  there  seems  to  be  no  prospect  of  having  a commercial  treaty  with 
Spain,  our  only  redress  is  for  our  Government  to  reduce  the  present 
duty  on  sugar  when  imported  in  hogsheads  about  one-fourth  cent  per 
pound,  the  duty  on  sugar  in  bags  to  remain  as  at  present,  or  to  increase 
our  present  duty  on  sugar  in  bags. 

If  reduced  in  hogsheads  it  cannot  in  any  way  affect  other  sugar-grow- 
ing countries,  their  sugar  being  shipped  in  bags,  as  the  higher  cost  of 
hogsheads  over  bags  is  fully  equal  to  reduction  proposed.  In  other 
words,  sugars  in  hogsheads  or  bags  would  then  cost  the  same  laid  down 
in  this  country. 

We  have  another  remedy  which  could  be  used  by  simply  following 
the  example  of  Spain  in  our  country,  and  which,  in  our  opinion,  would 
speedily  settle  the  matter  in  favor  of  our  cooperage,  and  without  dis- 
turbing our  present  tariff.  Several  years  ago  the  Spanish  Govern- 
ment instructed  her  consuls  in  all  American  ports  to  exact  a fee,  or 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


515 


export  duty,  of  10  cents  per  ton  of  cargo  shipped  on  board  of  American 
vessels,  when  cleared  to  West  India  islands,  and  this  consul  fee  (or 
more  properly  export  tax)  has  since  been  collected  against  the  indig- 
nant protest  of  all  American  ship  owners.  If  it  is  right  for  the  Spanish 
Government  to  collect  an  export  tax  in  our  country,  why  should  not 
our  consuls  in  the  Spanish  islands  be  instructed  to  collect  fees  on  bags 
sufficient,  so  that  shippers  would  be  obliged  to  use  American  hogsheads 
as  formerly,  instead  of  English  bags,  and  by  this  means  fully  protect 
the  cooperage  and  shipping  interests,  and  as  a matter  of  equity  and 
right  it  would  seem  that  some  relief  like  the  above  should  be  granted 
from  the  fact  that  about  nine-tenths  of  the  sugar  and  molasses,  as  we 
mention  above,  of  the  Spanish  West  India  islands  come  to  this  country, 
and  formerly  we  could  ship  cooperage  as  part  payment  of  same,  while 
if  no  relief  is  granted  we  cannot  ship  cooperage  to  pay  for  their  pro- 
ducts, but  must  furnish  cash  which  goes  to  the  English  manufacturer 
of  bags,  this  country  thus  losing  about  $3,000,000  per  annum,  besides 
throwing  out  of  employment  all  the  coopers  engaged  in  the  manufacture, 
the  carrying  trade  for  the  vessels,  the  freights  on  our  railroads,  and  the 
value  of  the  timber  lands,  the  class  of  timber  used  for  cooperage  be- 
ing of  no  use  for  other  purposes.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  of  great 
importance  that  something  be  done  to  protect  so  large  interests,  while 
at  the  same  time  no  parties  in  this  country  or  other  interest  would  suffer 
from  such  legislation.  Trusting  the  above  will  have  your  attention, 
We  remain,  your  obedient  servants, 

LORD  & HIGHT. 


[W.  N.  Fitzgerald,  carriages  and  harness .] 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir:  In  response  to  your  circular  asking  for  information  regarding 
our  manufacturing  industries,  with  a view  to  correcting  abuses  and  re- 
moving obstructions  which  retard  progress,  permit  me  to  state  that  I 
am  not  engaged  in  manufacturing,  but  for  several  years  prior  to  1869 
I was  interested  in  the  carriage  business,  and  since  that  time  I have 
been  conducting  a trade  journal  devoted  to  the  carriage  and  harness 
industries  and  their  collateral  branches,  and  have  given  much  attention 
to  matters  of  cost  of  production,  wages  of  mechanics,  profits  as  com- 
pared with  capital,  effects  of  foreign  competition,  and  advantages  of 
foreign  markets,  so  far  as  these  industries  are  concerned. 

The  carriage  and  harness  interests  are  so  closely  allied  that  they  can 
be  counted  as  one,  and  in  none  other  is  there  a greater  variety  of  ma- 
terials used,  embracing  timber,  all  kinds  of  metals,  silk,  wool,  and 
worsted  fabrics,  leather  (patent  and  plain),  paints,  oils,  varnishes,  &c., 
and  in  none  other  is  the  percentage  of  skilled  workmen  greater. 

The  importance  of  this  combined  industry  is  best  illustrated  by  the 
fact  that  of  the  three  hundred  and  thirty  manufacturing  industries  as 
classified  by  the  census  reports,  it  represents  about  one-tenth  the  num- 
ber of  establishments,  one-twentieth  the  number  of  male  employes  over 
16  years  of  age,  and  one-thirtieth  the  aggregate  value  of  the  products ; 
an  industry  therefore  that  is  so  large  and  varied  must  of  necessity  be 
interested  in  all  laws  that  influence  cost,  effect  wages,  contribute  to 
encourage  production,  or  operate  toward  securing  markets. 

The  tariff  law  as  it  now  stands  is  satisfactory  to  the  carriage  trade, 


516  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

so  far  as  it  applies  to  the  finished  vehicle,  as  competition  from  abroad 
is  confined  in  great  part  to  the  high  grade  of  vehicles.  Prior  to  the 
action  of  the  Carriage  Builders’ National  Association,  November  20, 1873, 
undervaluation  was  common,  but  since  then  the  evi]  has  been  lessened, 
and  little  trouble  is  experienced  except  from  importation  by  travelers 
who  purchase  vehicles  abroad  and  succeed  in  bringing  them  in  as  sec- 
ond-hand, or  as  personal  effects.  Very  few  dealers  import  carriages, 
as  the  cost  in  England  and  France — the  only  countries  where  styles  are 
produced  that  will  sell  in  our  markets — together  with  duties,  transpor- 
tation, &c.,  makes  the  prices  higher  than  those  of  like  grade  of  home 
manufacture.  The  American  carriage  builders  are  satisfied  with  ad 
valorem  duties,  believing  that  if  enforced  as  they  should  be  against 
importations  by  summer  travelers,  no  further  protection  would  be  nec- 
essary ; but  they  are  opposed  to  a change  from  an  ad  valorem  to  a spe- 
cific duty,  as  that  would  totally  exclude  medium  grades  or  admit  the 
fine  vehicles  at  rates  that  would  materially  affect  home  production. 

To  illustrate : The  landau  ranges  in  price  from  $1,000  to  $1,800  iu 
England  and  $900  to  $1,200  in  France,  the  general  character  of  the 
specific  grades  being  the  same.  The  present  ad  valorem  duty  on  the 
first  cost  of  the  vehicles  would  be,  English,  $1,350  and  $2,430;  French, 
$1,215  and  $1,020.  A specific  duty  of  $630  on  the  $1,800  vehicle  would 
be  equivalent  to  the  present  ad  valorem  duty,  but  if  that  specific  duty 
was  imposed  upon  the  $900  vehicle  it  would  be  equivalent  to  taxing  the 
low-priced  vehicle  70  per  cent.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  specific  duty 
was  based  upon  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  upon  the  low-priced  vehi- 
cle, the  $1,800  carriage  could  be  imported  on  the  payment  of  a duty 
equivalent  to  about  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  a rate  that  would  encour- 
age importation  and  operate  injuriously  if  not  fatally  to  our  fine  carriage 
trade,  unless  duties  of  all  kinds  are  removed  from  materials  of  every 
description  used  by  carriage  builders. 

The  harness  department  is  differently  situated  than  the  carriage,  and 
suffers  more  from  undervaluation.  There  is  no  proper  classification ; 
under  the  general  head  of  “saddlery,”  harness  full  trimmed  or  without 
trimmings,  riding  saddles,  bits,  stirrups,  mountings,  &c.,  are  admitted, 
while  the  same  goods,  except  when  complete  in  themselves,  are  admitted 
as  manufactures  of  leather  or  hardware,  the  ad  valorem  duty  on  all 
classes  being  alike,  but  by  the  divisions  and  conditions  under  which 
they  are  imported  undervaluation  is  an  easy  matter.  A specific  duty 
would  tend  to  aggravate  rather  than  correct  the  evil,  owing  to  the  great 
range  in  prices  of  articles  of  similar  form  and  finish,  which  will  vary  in 
price  from  30  cents  to  $4  each,  the  same  percentage  of  difference  run- 
ning through  the  entire  line.  The  first  step  to  placing  this  branch  on 
a proper  basis  is  the  proper  classification  of  the  goods,  the  separating 
of  harness  from  riding  saddles  and  metallic  from  leather  goods. 

I am  uuable  to  convince  myself  that  a change  from  the  ad  valorem 
to  a specific  duty  would  be  beneficial,  and  in  view  of  the  present  situa- 
tion of  business  I am  adverse  to  making  changes  of  any  kind  in  the 
duties  on  most  manufactured  goods,  but  favor  a change  as  regards  raw 
materials,  placing. them  as  far  as  possible  on  the  free  list,  and  where 
that  cannot  be  done  reducing  rates  to  the  lowest  possible  figure.  It  is 
little  short  of  a crime  that  our  manufacturers  are  compelled  to  pay 
more  for  American  copper  in  >>ew  York  than  the  English  manufacturer 
does  for  American  copper  in  London,  while  our  output  of  copper  is 
well  on  to  one  and  one  half  million  pounds  a month  more  than  we  can 
consume.  There  should  be  no  duty  on  copper,  lead,  or  tin.  So,  too, 
with  wood  screws,  a manufactured  article,  the  product  of  which  is 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


517 


but  one-half  the  capital  invested,  out  of  which  dividends  of  20  per 
cent,  and  upwards  have  been  paid  upon  the  grossly  excessive  capital, 
the  high  duties  making  it  impossible  to  import  screws  in  competition. 
The  duties  on  wood  screws  should  be  abolished,  or  at  least  reduced  to 
10  per  cent. 

Worsted  goods,  particularly  webs,  are  another  of  the  excrescences 
that  should  be  removed  from  the  tariff*.  The  saddler,  who  wishes  these 
webs,  is  compelled  to  pay  a tax  of  50  cents  a pound,  50  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  but  he  can  purchase  saddle-girths  made  up  of  this  web,  com- 
pletely fitted  up  with  buckles  and  straps,  in  England  and  import  them 
by  the  payment  of  a duty  of  35  per  cent,  which  will  enable  him  to  lay 
down  the  finished  girth  in  this  country  at  less  cost  than  the  same 
amount  of  web  uncut.  Saddle-cloths  of  felt,  uncut,  come  under  the 
same  head,  50  cents  a pound,  and  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  but  if  cut 
and  made  up  the  tariff  is  35  per  cent ; so  that  a made  up  saddle  cloth 
of  felt  costs  less  to  import  than  the  feit  for  the  same  in  the  piece.  Cor- 
rection of  abuses  of  this  character  are  more  important  than  a wholesale 
revision  of  the  tariff. 

I believe  that  undervaluation  is  due  less  to  defects  in  the  law  than  in 
the  manner  of  its  enforcement.  The  trouble  begins  with  the  original 
invoices.  If  the  consuls  who  attest  these  were  thoroughly  competent 
men,  who  possessed  the  ability  to  judge  qualities  and  the  courage  to 
enforce  their  opinions,  they  could  do  much  toward  checking  the  evil. 
I have  had  some  experience  with  invoices,  also  with  custom-house  ap- 
praisers, and  I am  persuaded  that  more  articles  that  are  undervalued 
pass  inspection  through  the  incompetency  of  officials  than  through  dis- 
honesty on  their  part.  It  may  not  be  within  the  province  of  this  paper 
to  refer  to  consuls,  but  so  much  of  the  undervaluation  is  due  to  their 
lack  of  knowledge  of  values  that  it  seems  necessary  to  refer  to  them. 
A man  may  be  a competent  accountant,  merchant,  or  manufacturer, 
yet  be  incompetent  as  a consul  when  called  upon  to  decide  as  to  values. 
To  determine  values  requires  a general  knowledge  of  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction and  quality  of  materials,  a knowledge  that  can  be  obtained  only 
by  years  of  close  application  to  the  technics  of  special  industries.  Then, 
too,  a man  might  be  competent  as  consul  at  Belfast  because  of  his 
knowledge  of  textile  fabrics,  and  incompetent  at  Manchester  or  Bir- 
mingham, where  metals  are  the  leading  exports. 

The  difference  in  interest  on  capital  is  no  inconsiderable  sum  as  com- 
pared with  that  paid  in  other  countries  ; particularly  so  in  industries 
like  carriage  making,  where,  as  is  the  case  with  fine  heavy  vehicles,  five 
to  six  months  are  required  in  which  to  build  them,  and  a sum  not  less 
than  $500  is  lying  idle  during  that  time  the  work  is  in  progress. 

The  question  of  wages  is  one  that  is  agitated  more  than  any  other, 
and  one  that  is  the  least  understood.  The  opinion  prevails  to  a great 
extent  that  the  cost  of  labor  here  is  the  chief  element  in  the  regulation 
of  prices.  This  feeling  has  been  intensified  by  the  statements  of  Amer- 
ican consuls  as  published  by  the  State  Department;  the  greater  num- 
ber of  these  statements  are  false  as  a whole,  or  the  conditions  under 
which  wages  were  earned  were  withheld;  in  either  case  the  impression 
left  by  them  was  equally  false. 

The  European  workman  is  surrounded  by  conditions  entirely  un- 
known to  workmen  in  this  country.  His  methods  differ  and  the  one 
great  hope  of  future  betterment  is  wanting.  He  works  slowly  and 
lives  poorly,  being  trained  to  do  as  his  father  did  before  him  and  to  be 
content  with  his  lot.  Remove  him  to  this  country  pay  him  the  same 
wages,  piece-work,  that  he  received  abroad,  and  in  a short  time  his  earn- 


518  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


ings  will  double  because  of  the  increase  in  the  amount  of  work  per- 
formed. Speaking  for  the  carriage  trade,  I know  that  there  is  a great 
deal  of  ignorance  as  to  the  labor  cost  in  Europe  and  America. 

The  landau,  brougham,  and  victoria  are  vehicles  that  are  almost 
identical  here  and  elsewhere,  and  the  prices  paid  for  making  become 
legitimate  as  a basis  for  comparison. 

The  London  prices  are : 


L ami  a u,  leather  top £17 

Landau,  glass  front 20 

Brougham - 15 

Victoria 10 

Paris  prices : 

Francs. 

Landau,  leather  top - 211 

Landau,  glass  front - 300 

Brougham 200 

Victoria 117 

Xew  York  prices: 

Laudau,  leather  top .* $85 

Landau,  glass  front 100 

Brougham 80 

Victoria 50 


There  is  an  apparent  difference  in  favor  of  Paris,  but  this  is  due 
mainly  to  the  manner  of  working.  In  Paris  the  wToodworkman  does 
not  iron  any  portion  of  the  body,  not  even  hanging  the  doors,  while  in 
America  and  England  all  irons  necessary  to  fit  up  the  body  are  put  on 
by  the  woodworker.  Add  to  the  Paris  prices  the  cost  of  putting  on 
these  irons,  and  there  would  be  very  little  difference  in  the  actual  cost 
of  making  the  body. 

The  output  of  factories  furnish  us  with  another  illustration  of  the 
difference  in  the  productive  power  of  labor  in  this  country  and  in  Eu- 
rope. The  result  reached  after  a careful  series  of  comparisons,  cover- 
ing the  experience  of  five  years,  shows  that  in  the  carriage  business 
75  men  in  this  country  produce  as  much  in  one  year  as  100  men  in  Eng- 
land and  115  men  in  Paris.  In  this  comparison  the  wholesale  estab- 
lishments in  this  country  where  machinery  is  largely  employed  are 
omitted.  If, therefore,  the  same  piece-work  prices  are  paid  in  each  coun- 
try the  wages  earned  by  the  75  men  in  this  country  would  have  to  be 
divided  up  between  100  in  England  and  115  in  Paris.  The  difference 
in  wages,  therefore,  being  so  slight,  it  may  be  asked,  why  is  there  so 
great  a difference  in  the  value  of  the  finished  vehicle?  My  answer  is, 
first,  the  increased  cost  owing  to  difference  in  the  rate  of  interest;  sec- 
ondly, the  greatly  increased  office  and  factory  expenses,  grouped  under 
the  head  of  nonproductive  labor;  thirdly,  the  increased  cost  of  mate- 
rials, averaging  about  50  per  cent. 

The  cost  of  the  fine  cloth  used  in  trimming  a landau  is,  in  this  country, 
about  $90;  the  same  make  of  cloth  costs  the  European  manufacturer, 
the  quantity  used  being  the  same,  about  $45.  Carriage  silks,  laces, 
fringes,  bullions,  plate-glass,  &c.,  cost  from  35  to  45  per  cent,  more  here 
than  abroad.  All  the  finest  carriage  cloths  are  imported ; the  wools 
used  in  their  manufacture  are  not  grown  in  our  country,  and  the  heavy 
duty  imposed  makes  it  impossible  to  use  them  in  competition  with  manu- 
facturers of  cloths  who  obtain  them  free  of  duty. 

In  preparing  a tariff,  two  points  should  be  considered.  Ofie  the  effect 
upon  our  home  trade,  the  other  the  effect  upon  our  exports.  If  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


519 


American  carriage  manufacturer  is  compelled  to  pay  even  so  much  as 
25  per  cent,  more  for  his  materials  than  the  foreign  competitor,  he  is 
necessarily  placed  at  a great  disadvantage.  That  he  does,  and  that 
the  value  of  our  carriage  exports  is  so  great,  being  1,347  vehicles  in  the 
year  ending  December  1,  1885,  valued  at  $237,648,  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  productive  power  of  a given  amount  of  capital  is  so  much 
greater  here  than  it  is  abroad,  and  to  the  genius  of  our  craftsmen  in 
keeping  well  in  advance  in  styles,  &c. 

The  lack  of  transportation  is  a serious  drawback,  and  it  does  not  speak 
much  for  the  enterprise  of  our  countrymen  when,  in  order  to  ship  a car- 
riage to  South  Africa,  to  parts  of  South  America,  and  to  Australia, 
they  must  first  ship  them  to  some  English  or  Dutch  port  and  then  re- 
ship to  destination.  The  large  trade  built  up  is  due  to  personal  solici- 
tation, it  being  impossible  for  our  manufacturers  to  obtain  positive  in- 
formation as  to  the  wants  of  communities.  No  branch  of  industry  has 
been  more  united  in  their  efforts  to  learn  the  wants  of  foreign  nations 
than  the  carriage.  At  their  convention  in  1883  they  adopted  a resolu- 
tion instructing  the  secretary  to  correspond  with  American  consuls, 
which  instruction  was  carried  out,  and  a number  of  replies  received,  a 
copy  of  which  I have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith.  Several  of  these 
replies  are  valuable,  but  the  majority  show  a lack  of  information  on  the 
part  of  the  consuls,  while  the  large  number  who  failed  to  reply  to  the 
secretary’s  letter  indicates  a wonderful  indifference  to  the  interest  of 
our  manufacturers,  an  indifference  that  is  maintained  even  toward  busi- 
ness men  who  are  entitled  to  some  attention  when  visiting  a distant 
country. 

With  our  present  facilities  for  manufacturing  we  can  more  than  sup- 
ply th&home  demand,  and  unless  a foreign  trade  can  be  secured  there 
can  be  no  stability  to  trade.  Neither  a high  tariff  nor  free  trade  will 
avail.  We  must  find  markets  for  our  surplus,  as  the  surplus  will  in- 
crease as  wages  decrease.  As  a nation  we  have  consumed  close  up  to 
our  production,  because  of  the  ability  of  our  working  classes  to  pur- 
chase. With  that  power  curtailed  overproduction  will  be  an  easy 
matter;  but  with  consumers  who  do  not  produce  sufficient  to  absorb 
one-fourth  our  output  there  would  be  greater  stability  in  wages  and 
consequently  greater  prosperity  among  our  workers. 

I have  no  sympathy  with  the  idea,  so  much  talked  of,  that  a pro- 
tective tariff  is  a necessity  in  order  to  secure  good  wages  to  workmen. 
The  time  was  when  this  had  weight,  but  with  Europe’s  population 
within  ten  days’  call  there  will  always  be  enough  labor  at  command  to 
make  a material  advance  in  wages  impossible.  Then,  too,  experience 
proves  that  a high  tariff* does  not  advance  wages.  The  makers  of  wood- 
screws,  though  their  product  is  protected  to  an  extent  that  makes  for- 
eign competition  impossible,  earn  on  an  average  less  than  $350  a year. 
House  hardware  is  protected  to  the  extent  of  35  per  cent,  yet  the  work- 
men average  but  $325  a year.  Saddlery  hardware,  with  its  35  per  cent, 
protection,  pays  its  workmen  about  $350  per  year.  The  bricklayer  and 
carpenter  have  no  tariff  to  protect  them,  yet  their  wages  will  average 
about  $600.  The  same  singular  feature  is  observable  through  the  en- 
tire line  of  our  industries — where  the  tariff  is  the  highest  wages  are  the 
lowest,  not  necessarily  because  of  a high  tariff,  but  simply  because 
other  causes  are  more  potent. 

We  are  rapidly  drifting  into  the  channels  followed  by  workmen  in 
other  countries.  Trade  organizations  are  multiplying.  The  working- 
classes  feel  that  they  are  being  crowded  to  the  wall,  and  unless  acting  in 
concert  they  must  eventually  submit  to  lower  wages.  This  movement 


520  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


will  keep  off  the  evil  day  for  a time ; bat  every  man  who  joins  one  of  these 
organizations  sinks  his  individuality  and  sells  his  birthright  to  a major- 
ity of  his  associates.  'Legislation  can  arrest  this  movement  by  the  en- 
actment of  tariff  laws  that  will  enable  us  to  compete  in  the  world’s 
markets  and  by  commercial  treaties  that  will  encourage  our  shipping 
industries,  and  make  it  possible  to  deliver  American  goods  to  any  part 
of  the  world  in  American  bottoms. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

WM.  N.  FITZGERALD. 

Note. — Printed  inclosures  will  be  separately  transmitted  to  Congress. 


[Leslie  Iron  Works,  steel  blooms .] 

Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  December  1, 1885. 
His  Excellency  President  Cleveland  : 

Dear  Sir  : Before  the  last  Presidential  election  there  was  great  ex- 
citement about  this  tariff  question,  that  there  has  been  so  much  trickery 
carried  on  of  late  years  during  the  term  of  the  Republican  party.  Dur- 
ing the  darkest  days  of  the  rebellion,  when  the  Government  was  sorely 
pushed  for  money,  the  greatest  duty  they  ever  charged  wras  45  per  cent, 
on  steel  blooms.  Those  steel  blooms  are-used  for  making  tires  for  loco- 
motive driving-wheels  and  car-wheels.  They  are  actually  raw  material. 
Three  mills  in  this  country  combined  about  three  years  ago  and  had  the 
duty  raised  on  those  steel  blooms  from  45  to  90  per  cent.  Now  those 
same  three  mills  charge  an  extortionate  price  for  their  steel  tires.  By 
their  trickery  they  have  got  the  whip  in  their  own  hands,  and  make 
every  man,  woman,  and  child  that  travels  on  a railroad  pay  into  their 
pockets  money.  The  duty  on  those  steel  blooms  ought  to  be  brought 
back  to  the  old  price — 45  per  cent.  It  is  strange  that  three  mills  should 
combine  and  carry  an  important  matter  of  this  kind  and  fill  their  own 
pockets  at  the  expense  of  the  people.  Those  three  mills  are  as  follows  : 
Nashua  Steel  and  Iron  Company,  Nashua,  N.  H. ; Standard  Steel  Tire 
Works,  at  Lewistown,  Pa. ; Midvale  Steel  and  Tire  Works,  Nicetown, 
Pa.  Those  are  the  three  mills  that  are  swindling  the  public.  There  is 
one  other  small  mill  in  Chicago,  named  the  Chicago  Tire  and  Spring 
Works.  They  started  up  a few  years  ago,  making  steel  tires,  and 
bought  frheir  blooms  in  Sheffield,  England,  and  paid  the  Government  45 
per  cent,  duty  on  all  the  material  they  used.  By  the  trickery  of  those 
three  other  mills  having  the  duty  raised  from  45  to  90  per  cent,  they 
have  actually  ruined  this  mill  in  Chicago  and  nearty  bankrupted  the 
owners.  I hope  you  will  investigate  this  matter  and  have  the  duty 
brought  back  to  the  old  standard — 45  per  cent.  The  Government  asked 
no  more  than  this  in  its  darkest  days,  when  it  was  very  hard  to  tell 
which  would  be  which.  * * * 

Yours,  respectfully, 

HUGH  LESLIE. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


521 


[Andrea-Jocliams,  iron  and  glass.] 

Charleroi,  Belgium,  December  1,  1885. 
The  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington: 

Sir:  If  it  can  be  of  any  use  to  yon,  I send  you  some  information 
proving  that  on  iron  and  glass  the  present  duty  in  your  country  repre- 
sents more  than  100  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  these  goods  manufactured 
in  Belgium  and  delivered  f.  o.  b.  Antwerp. 

Iron  beams  and  channels—  The  Iron  Age,  of  19th  November  last,  indi- 
cates price  of  American  beams  and  channels  as  3 cents  a pound,  free 
from  dock,  in  New  York.  The  duty  on  beams  and  channels  is  1J  cents 
per  pound. 

We  have  still  $2.50  freight  per  ton  from  Antwerp  to  New  York,  and 
one-half  per  cent,  sea  insurance.  However,  though  all  raw  materials 
and  wages  are  high  in  Belgium  as  in  America,  we  can  sell  iron  beams 
and  channels  at  2-^  cents  per  pound,  cost,  freight,  insurance,  and 
duty  included,  New  York.  The  quality  of  our  iron  beams  and  chan- 
nels and  tensile  strength  are  good,  equal  to  best  American  goods. 

Window  glass , or  you  call  “common  cylinder  glass.” — One  of  our  in- 
voices for  glass  sent  to  United  States  America,  calculated,  declared  f. 
o.  b.  Antwerp,  represents,  for  instance,  100.  When  you  acid  the  pres- 
ent duty  for  glass  in  United  States  of  America,  the  value,  cost,  insurance, 
and  freight,  New  York,  duty  included,  is  exactly  215.  However,  coal, 
soda,  all  raw  materials,  and  wages  are  higher  paid  here  than  in 
America. 

We  must  conclude  here  in  Europe,  either  American  manufacturers 
must  make  immense  profits,  paid  by  your  60,000,000  inhabitants,  duty 
doubling  the  value  of  same  goods  here,  or  they  will  never  have  techni- 
cal science  for  producing  manufactured  goods  retailed  here  at  a reason- 
able cost  price. 

I remain,  sir,  yours,  most  respectfullv, 

ANDBES-JOCHAMS, 

Secretary  of  the  two  largest  Iron  and  Glass  Works  in  Belgium. 


(J.  B.  Sargent  and  others,  iron  and  steel.) 

The  iron  duties . — A review  of  the  letter  of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel 
Association , November  10,  1885. 

December  21,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir  : The  undersigned,  who  are  directly  connected  with  the  metal 
and  hardware  industries  and  who  are  in  relation  also  with  organiza- 
tions looking  to  the  reform  of  our  present  revenue  system,  have  noted 
the  letter  addressed  to  you  from  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Associa- 
tion under  date  of  November  10, 1885,  and  since  made  public  in  pam- 
phlet form,  as  a reply  to  the  inquiries  of  your  circular  letter  of  July 
17,  1885.  The  fact  that  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association  is  the 
leading  protectionist  organization  in  this  country,  and  that  Mr.  Swank, 
its  general  manager — doubtless  the  author  of  this  report — is  one  of  the 
leading  advocates  of  the  protective  system,  justifies  us,  we  believe,  in 
considering  this  as  an  authoritative  reply  from  the  protectionist  body 


522  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

to  your  circular,  aud  the  last  word  from  the  “ protection”  side,  and  we 
therefore  feel  justified  in  asking  your  attention  to  some  review  of  that 
letter  from  the  standpoint  of  practical  business  interests.  The  letter 
confesses  at  the  outset  that  it  has  been  practicable  to  obtain  the  de- 
sired information  from  less  than  a quarter  of  the  270  members  of  the 
association  and  the  other  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  addressed,  mak- 
ing 550  in  all.  As  these  business  interests  are  always  asking  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States  to  pay  higher  prices  for  metal  goods  in  order 
that  their  interests  may  be  “protected,”  it  would  seem  only  fair  that 
they  should  be  willing  to  justify  their  action  by  freely  stating  the  evi- 
dence on  which  they  base  their  claims. 

W e beg  to  point  out  also  that  the  letter  is  not  at  all  a reply,  but  prac 
tically  an  evasion  of  the  real  question  put  in  your  letter.  Instead  of 
specific  information  from  w7hich  conclusions  could  be  determined  by  the 
Department  and  the  public,  the  reply  furnishes  generalizations,  infer- 
ences and  tabulated  figures,  which  cannot  be  accepted  as  an  exact  state- 
ment of  generally  true  facts.  Instead  of  replies  as  to  the  u feasibility 
of  simplifying  the  tariff  and  making  the  duties  specific”  there  is  a gen- 
eral dissertation  devoted  to  defending  the  present  system  and  incident- 
ally asking  for  higher  duties.  So  far  as  the  question  of  specific  duties 
is  discussed  the  letter  is  simply  a demand  for  higher  rates  of  taxation. 
We  beg  to  point  out  incidentally  that  the  letter  gives  practical  confir- 
mation to  the  objections  to  specific  duties,  that  they  have  the  disad- 
vantage of  increasing  disproportionately  the  cost  of  articles  used  by  the 
great  body  of  the  people,  and  of  increasing  the  rate  of  tax  as  goods  in 
the  natural  course  of  invention  and  civilization  become  cheaper,  so  that 
the  average  rate  on  dutiable  merchandise,  which  was,  under  the  pre- 
vious tariff,  42§  per  cent.,  and  in  the  first  year  of  1883,  41§  percent.,  is 
reported  by  the  Treasury  abstract  of  1884-1885  as  46  per  cent,  during 
the  past  year.  The  association  candidly  states  that  u the  cheapness  of 
foreign  products  is  the  feature  of  foreign  competition  against  which 
protective  duties  are  required,”  and  points  out,  in  relation  to  1884,  that 
“ low  prices  had  the  effect  of  advancing  the  ad  valorem  equivalents  of 
specific  duties.”  Revenue  reformers  hold  that  when  the  progress  of  in- 
dustrial development  or  the  bouuty  of  nature  makes  goods  cheap,  the 
American  people  should  not  be  deprived  of  the  advantages  shared  by 
the  rest  of  the  world.  The  proposition  of  the  association  to  tax  the 
South  an  additional  half  million  dollars  on  its  cotton  crop,  by  increas- 
ing the  duty  on  cotton  ties,  and  to  further  restrict  the  great  tinware 
industry,  by  doubling  the  duty  on  tin  plates,  are  discussed  more  fully 
in  memoranda  accompanying  this  reply. 

The  advocates  of  protection  have,  nevertheless,  become  uneasy  at  the 
growing  feeling  of  restiveness  amongst  consumers  at  paying  high 
prices  for  the  sake  of  the  blessings  of  a protective  tariff  ; and  so  we 
find  the  Iron  and  Steel  Association  falling  in  with  the  current  to 
claim  that  the  result  of  the  protective  policy  is  an  ultimate  cheapening 
of  goods.  But  the  table  of  protective  prices  (p.  22),  which  is  relied 
upon  to  show  this  is,  as  a matter  of  fact,  for  eleven  years — 1874-1885 — 
of  dull  trade,  barring  about  fourteen  months  in  187t)-’80,  during  which 
prices  were  naturally  lower  than  they  would  have  been  under  ordinary 
conditions,  aud  relatively  lower  with  us  than  anywhere  else  in  the 
world,  because  we  were  choked  up  with  our  surplus,  which  the  indirect 
effects  of  the  high  tariff  prevented  us  from  sending  abroad.  We  are 
willing  to  accept  the  comparison,  however;  and,  using  only  one  col- 
umn., that  for  pig-iron  (the  basis  of  the  whole  business,  whose  tiuctua- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


523 


tions  govern  those  of  iron  and  steel  in  every  shape),  we  will  place  these 
results  alongside  of  the  average  price  of  Scotch  iron  during  the  same 
periods,  as  follows : 


American 

iron. 

Scotch 

iron. 

1846  to  1860  average  under  low  tariff 

$26i 

23 

8. 

58 

54 

1874  to  1885,  average  under  high,  tariff 

Difference 

3£=120/0  | 4=7% 

This  means  that  (as  common  sense  would  suggest)  pig-iron  is  every- 
where made  more  cheaply  now  than  thiity  years  ago,  by  reason  of  im- 
provement in  processes,  and  that  we  have  had  our  share  of  this  reduc- 
tion in  cost.  On  a par  with  the  above  claim  is  the  passing  assertion  on 
the  next  page  that  “ protection  alone  had  made  possible  cheap  steel 
rails.”  This  statement  in  a serious  paper  is  unpardonable.  Of  course 
the  writer  knew  that  foreigners  had  availed  themselves  of  the  discover- 
ies of  science  to  reduce  the  cost  of  rails  even  more  than  ourselves,  and 
that  when  our  Bessemer  monopolies  were  exacting  $50  a ton  the  cus- 
tomers of  English  mills  were  bei’ug  supplied  at  $30.  When  our  home 
demand  fell  off  to  one-third  of  the  productive  capacity,  and  the  mills, 
restricted  by  the  tariff  on  pig-iron  to  a domestic  market,  recklessly  com- 
peted with  each  other  for  the  scanty  custom  left,  prices  fell  as  low  as 
$25.50.  And  this  is  the  only  way  in  which  prices  can  be  reduced  to  a 
reasonable  basis  under  a protective  tariff.  Instead  of  being  steadily 
regulated  by  the  free  movement  of  trade  to  a fair  margin  of  profit 
we  must  wait  until  commercial  depression  begins  to  glut  our  market 
w ith  an  unsalable  stock,  produced  at  such  an  artificially  high  cost  that 
it  cannot  be  exported,  but  stands  in  the  way  to  cripple  fresh  produc- 
tion and  increase  the  stagnation.  It  was  so  with  pig-iron  in  1878,  wdien 
great  piles  of  accumulated  stock  were  pressing  on  the  market  on  every 
hand,  and  it  has  been  so  again  to  a less  extent  in  1885. 

But  must  we  have  this  protective  tariff,  with  all  its  stifling  influence, 
to  enable  us  to  produce  iron  at  all?  Some  of  the  reasons  given  to  sup- 
port this  view  we  may  put  aside  without  discussion,  such  as  the  un- 
doubted fact  that  plant  depreciates  through  use,  and  is  antiquated  by 
inventions.  This  is  common  to  ourselves  and  the  whole  world.  Of  lit- 
tle more  force  is  the  startling  announcement  that  pig-iron  has  recently 
been  shipped  from  Glasgow  to  New  York  for  two  shillings  and  less, 
when  the  rail  freight  from  the  Lehigh  Valley  was  $1  per  ton.  When 
importations  are  at  the  rate  of  2,000  or  3,000  tons  a month,  the  steam- 
ship lines  are  willing  to  take  pig-iron  or  ore  at  very  low  figures,  for  use 
as  ballast,  and  it  might  have  been  stated  that  rates  have  been  as  low  as 
Is.,  and  even  free.  But  these  exceptions  prove  little.  Every  dealer 
will  recall  1879,  when  10s.  was  an  ordinary  figure  ; and  it  is  quite  pos- 
sible that  shipments  of  one-half  the  quantity  that  comes  by  rail  from 
Pennsylvania  to  New7  York  would  advance  the  freight  charge  to  some- 
thing like  20s.,  and  so  give  us  a natural  u protection”  of  about  $4  a ton. 
Within  the  past  few  weeks  the  demand  for  ship  room  to  bring  a fewr 
thousand  tons  of  Bessemer  pig  (imported  at  a higher  cost  than  the 
domestic  iron,  because  of  superior  quality)  has  caused  an  advance  in 
freight  rates  to  8s.  a ton,  which  is  nearly  double  the  advance  in  price 
of  pig  iron  here.  The  ruling  rate  is,  in  fact,  about  8s.  per  ton,  as  is 
shown  by  the  contract  rate  for  several  cargoes  of  foreign  ore  now  in 


524 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


transit  for  delivery  at  Baltimore  at  this  quotation,  the  rate  for  ore  or 
for  pig-iron  ruling  about  the  same. 

is  or  need  we  even  consider  very  seriously  the  question  of  higher 
labor  for  any  of  the  more  finished  products ; for  apart  from  the  fact  that 
none  of  our  workmen  except  the  puddlers  and  nailers  are  paid  much 
higher  wages  than  the  same  men  abroad  (a  difference  in  great  measure 
neutralized  by  the  higher  cost  for  no  better  living),  the  market  values 
of  the  raw  material  and  the  manufactured  product  in  England  and 
America  show  that  the  cost  of  converting  pig-iron  into  bars  and  rails  is 
about  the  same  here  as  across  the  water,  thus : 


In  America. 

In  England. 

Mfidinm  har-irnn  aaIIa  at. 

Per  ton. 
$35  84 
15  00 

£s. 

6 0 = $29  10 
2 8=  11  64 

Grey  Forge  pig-iron  sells  at 

Convp.rtin fr  pic  into  liars : _ _ 

20  84 

17  46 

Steel  rails  sell  at 

34  00 

5 1 = 24  50 
2 2 = 10  20 

Bessemer  pig-iron  sells  at 

20  50 

Converting  pig  into  rails 

13  50 

14  30 

The  English  quotations  on  bar  are  for  South  Staffordshire  bar  of  the 
quality  usually  marketed  in  this  country  alongside  our  medium  bar, 
and  for  pig  of  corresponding  quality. 

The  great  difference  in  price  is  in  pig-iron,  the  foundation  of  the  en- 
tire industry,  and  here  it  will  prove  useful  to  dissect  the  table  given  on 
page  15,  showing  average  cost  during  three  years  from  a number  of 
furnaces,  of  which  it  is  candidly  stated  that  “only  a few  are  among  the 
newest  and  best  equipped.”  As  it  is  also  stated  on  page  2 that  the  re- 
ports are  from  less  than  one-fourth  of  the  whole  association,  and  the 
total  cost  given  is  remarkably  high,  it  is  a fair  conclusion  that  almost 
none  of  the  furnaces  working  most  cheaply  have  reported.  Such  as  it 
is,  the  table  is  as  follows  (omitting  charcoal  iron,  which  is  unimportant 
in  the  discussion) : 


Labor  in  producing  raw  materials $10  26 

Labor  in  transporting  raw  materials 1 78 

Labor  at  furnace,  including  repairs 1 91 


Total  cost  of  labor 13  95 

Taxes,  insurance,  commissions,  office  expenses,  interest,  freight,  traveling  ex- 
penses, royalties,  &c *.  5 22 


Total  cost  of  a ton  of  pig-iron 19  17 

Percentage  of  labor  cost  to  total  cost 73 


The  effort  here  is  to  sustain  the  theory  that  pig-iron  is  all  labor,  but 
nothing  can  excuse  such  a deliberate  perversion  of  fact  as  is  contained 
in  these  few  figures.  The  entire  cost  of  raw  material — made  up  appar- 
ently of  2 tons  ore,  at  $3.50  ; 1 h tonsof  coal,  at  $1.60 ; and  1 ton  of  lime- 
stone, at  75  cents — is  miscalled  u labor.”  What  becomes  of  the  royalty 
of  25  cents  to  $1  a ton,  and  the  profits  of  the  ore  companies?  Accord- 
ing to  the  census  of  1880,  when  wages  were  much  higher,  the  actual 
wages  paid  for  mining  this  ore  were  $2.81,  and  for  the  coal  $1.22.  Add- 
ing 40  cents  wages  paid  for  quarrying  limestone,  we  get  the  total  u labor 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


\ 


r>  25 


for  producing  raw  material  ” as  $4.43  to  1 ton  of  pig  iron,  instead  of 
$10.26,  as  in  the  table.  In  like  manner  the  association  puts  down  to 
“labor”  all  the  freight  money  paid  out.  Just  how  much  of  this  is  re- 
ceived by  the  railroad  employes  it  is  of  course  impossible  to  say;  but 
here  is  the  opinion  ou  the  subject  of  the  Iron  Age,  whose  fealty  to  the 
protective  policy  no  one  will  doubt,  in  a leading  article  published  March 
12,  1885 : 

We  know  of  furnaces  in  the  Lehigh  Valley  whose  iron  is  shipped  to  tidewater  for 
less  than  70  cents  a ton.  Such  reductions  of  course  afford  some  relief,  but  they  do  not 
strike  at  the  root  of  the  evils  of  which  many  furnaces  in  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  else- 
where complain.  It  is  the  freight  on  the  raw  materials  which  is  the  most  telling 
factor,  and  which  is  rendered  so  light  to  Alabama  producers  by  proximity  to  eoaland 
ore.  It  is  estimated  by  excellent  authority  that  the  actual  cost  of  carrying  coal — the 
cheapest  freight  to  handle — is  not  more  than  one  fourth  cent  per  mile  on  leading  roads 
for  long  hauls,  and  that  one-half  cent  per  mile  is  certainly  a fair  allowance  for  short 
hauls  on  trunk  lines.  Making  due  allowance  for  the  fact  that  much  ore  and  coal 
are  carried  over  railroads  with  little  traffic  as  compared  with  trunk  lines,  and  that 
with  them  the  cost  may  be  double,  it  will  be  fully  understood  by  manufacturers  of 
pig-iron  in  the  North  and  West  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  there  is  room  for  a con- 
siderable reduction  without  asking  the  railroads  to  abandon  a fair  profit. 


If  this  estimate  is  correct,  the  u labor  for  transporting  raw  material” 
ought  not  to  be  put  down  at  over  40  cents  in  most  cases.  The  item  of 
64  labor  at  furnace”  is  fairly  reasonable,  but  an  allowance  of  $5.22,  or  25 
per  cent.,  for  et  ceteras  would  indicate  a most  extravagant  business,  and 
is  $2  more  than  the  highest  estimate  that  has  ever  been  made,  even  in- 
cluding that  drawn  up  by  Mr.  J.  C.  Bayles,  with  the  express  intention 
of  proving  that  the  estimates  of  cost  in  the  South  had  been  placed  too 
low.  Bemodeling  our  table  by  the  new  light  we  have  found,  it  will 
read  (taking  economic  cost  in  the  country  at  large)  as  follows : 


Labor  of  mining  iron  ore $2  81 

Labor  of  mining  coal 1 22 

Labor  of  mining  limestone 40 

Labor  in  transportation 40 

Labor  at  furnace  and  repairs 1 91 


Total  labor 6 74 

Ordinary  allowance  of  et  ceteras 3 00 

Actual  economic  cost 9 74 


Or,  bringing  et  ceteras  up  to  the  Association’s  statement 11  96 

To  get  the  Association’s  result  we  are  obliged  to  add: 

Royalties  on  ore  and  profit  of  ore  mining  companies $4  19 

Royalties  on  coal  and  profit  of  coal  mining  companies 1 29 

Profit  on  limestone 35 

Profit  of  transportation  companies , 1 38 


Total  cost 19  17 

Percentage  to  labor 354 

Percentage  to  railroad 7% 

Percentage  to  mine  owners 30f 


The  cost  of  making  pig-iron  at  Middlesboro,  England,  wherefree  com- 
petition has  forced  on  mining  companies  moderate  profits,  averages  $8.81 
per  ton,  of  which  $7.17  is  represented  by  the  raw  material  used ; so  that 
it  is  plain  that  the  higher  cost  in  this  country  is  caused  almost  wholly  by 


526 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


the  rack-rent  paid  to  mine  owners  and  to  railroads  carrying  raw  materials ; 
and  that  these  two  classes  are  the  real  beneficiaries  of  the  excessive  tariff 
that,  starting  with  pig  as  the  basis,  raises  the  values  of  iron  and  steel  pro- 
ducts to  so  high  a level  that  we  are  shut  out  from  the  trade  of  the  world. 
If,  to  the  actual  labor  paid  for  mining  the  raw  material,  as  given  posi- 
tively by  the  census — $1.35  per  ton,  of  ore,  which  the  statistics  of  Mr. 
8 wank  tell  us  averages  55  per  cent,  metallic  iron,  and  79  cents  per 
ton  of  coal,  of  which  one  and  one-half  tons  are  used  to  smelt  a ton  of 
pig — and  to  the  labor  of  transportation,  as  estimated  by  the  protec- 
tionist Iron  Age,  we  add  a profit  of  20  per  cent.,  the  expenses  at  the 
furnace  itself,  and  the  sundry  charges,  we  find  that  the  real  cost  of  the 
pig  will  vary  from  $10.50  to  $13,  according  as  the  business  is  conducted 
under  economic  management  and  with  improved  plant,  or  the  reverse. 
This  exactly  agrees  with  what  is  known  of  the  cost  of  producing  by 
such  companies  as  the  Thomas,  Colebrook,  or  Cornwall  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, which  mine  their  own  ore,  but  buy  and  transport  coal  at  high- 
tariff  rates ; by  the  Virginia  furnaces,  which  buy  ore  comparatively 
cheap,  because  there  are  few  of  them  in  relation  to  the  neighboring 
supply  of  raw  material,  and  by  the  furnaces  in  Alabama  and  Tennessee, 
which  have  the  advantage  of  ore  and  coal  lying  side  by  side,  as  well  as 
that  of  being  as  yet  in  a position  to  dictate  terms  to  the  land  barons  who 
own  the  mines,  even  where  they  must  buy  their  material,  instead  of 
digging  it  on  their  own  property.  Both  conditions  of  ownership  of 
mines  and  proximity  of  fuel  to  ore  are  combined  in  the  case  of  certain 
furnaces  in  the  Hocking  Valley,  Ohio,  which  it  is  now  said  can  make 
iron  at  a cost  of  $10  a ton. 

The  one  reason,  then,  why  we  cannot  produce  pig-iron — and  conse- 
quently bars,  and  nails, and  plates, and  sheets,  andsteel  rails — as  cheaply 
as  abroad,  is  that  it  must  pay  an  exorbitant  rent  to  the  fortunate  pos- 
sessors of  natural  advantages  ; and  the  worst  of  it  is,  that  the  greater 
the  development  of  our  iron  industries  the  higher  will  become  the  pro- 
portion that  goes  to  rent,  and  the  narrower  the  margin  to  the  furnace- 
man  who  must  buy  his  material.  Mills  and  furnaces  may  be  multiplied 
indefinitely,  but  mining  properties  are  the  gift  of  nature  (which  in  some 
other  countries — as  Germany,  which  charges  for  their  use  a royalty  not 
exceeding  2 per  cent,  on  price  per  ton — belong  to  the  State,  just  as  gold 
mines  do  in  New  York),  and  no  efforts  of  man  can  add  to  their  number. 
Ore  is  a bulky  commodity,  which  cannot  profitably  be  brought  from  a 
great  distance,  unless  very  rich  in  metallic  iron,  or  having  special  qual- 
ities that  make  it  specially  desirable,  but  on  the  other  hand  must  be 
disposed  of  near  where  it  is  produced  or  not  at  all. 

Our  importations  of  ore  have  been  but  about  500,000  tons  per  year, 
and  if  we  had  to  import  the  9,000,000  tons  we  need  for  consumption, 
there  would  not  be  vessels  enough  to  carry  it,  and  freight  rates  would 
be  prohibitive.  Therefore  while  the  furnaces  in  a given  district  are 
few  in  comparison  to  the  supply  of  ore  and  fuel  at  hand,  the  prices  at 
which  these  sell  will  be  low  in  comparison  with  the  prices  of  pig ; but 
in  proportion  as  the  furnaces  increase  in  number  the  margin  of  profit 
to  the  furnace-man  will  diminish  and  that  to  the  mine-owner  will  grow. 
This  has  been  the  progress  of  events  in  Pennsylvania,  and  it  will  be  the 
same  in  the  South,  unless  our  tariff  is  reformed.  The  manufacturer 
will  get  a high  price  for  his  goods,  because  foreign  competition  is  shut 
out,  but  he  will  be  no  better  off  if  he  must  pay  all  the  advance  for  raw 
material,  and  when  dull  trade  comes  he  can  find  no  market  for  the 
surplus  which  this  country  will  not  take,  because  his  masters,  the  mo- 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


527 


nopolists,  who  own  the  land  and  the  railways,  forbid  him  to  manu- 
facture cheaply  enough  to  meet  a foreign  demaud. 

The  association,  in  stating  that  “ it  does  not  approve  of  the  unofficial 
suggestion  that  there  should  be  a general  revision  of  the  tariff,”  states 
that  “ our  present  tariff  is  a new  tariff,  less  than  three  years  old,  and  we 
know  of  no  good  reason  why  it  should  be  revised,  as  is  proposed,  from 
beginning  to  end.”  But  it  holds  that  it  should  be  corrected  in  detail 
“ so  as  to  secure  needed  protection,”  that  is  to  say,  so  as  to  increase  the 
duty  on  certain  articles.  The  proposition  of  revenue  reformers  at  the 
present  time  is  that  the  more  onerous  burdens  of  the  present  tariff 
should  be  obviated  by  particular  steps  of  revenue  reform  rather  than  by  a 
general  revision ; but  now,  as  always,  the  protectionists  object  to  any  re- 
duction whatever  of  duties  as  “tariff  tinkering,”  although  an  increase  of 
duties  meets  their  entire  approval  at  any  time.  The  so-called  new  tariff 
of  1883  was  subsequent  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Republican  Tariff 
Commission  that  in  the  interest  of  our  manufacturers  there  should  be  a 
general  reduction  of  20  per  cent.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  average  duty  on 
dutiable  goods  which  was  in  1881-’82, 42.66,  and  in  1882-?83,  42.45,  was 
reduced  in  1883-’84  to  only  41.61,  but  with  the  fall  of  prices  during  the 
year  past,  according  to  the  report  of  the  Treasury  Department,  has  in- 
creased again  to  46.07.  The  Tariff  Commission,  which  included  Henry 
L.  Oliver  and  Robert  P.  Porter,  said  specifically  in  regard  to  the  iron 
and  steel  duties  : “ The  country  and  trade  have  outgrown  the  legislation 
of  eighteen  years  ago.  New  processes,  new  terms,  new  articles  are  now 
in  existence;  and  in  no  part  of  the  tariff  law  is  revision  more  necessary 
than  in  this  schedule.”  Yet  the  duty  on  iron  and  steel,  which  averaged 
in  1883  slightly  over  40  per  cent.,  was  reduced  by  that  tariff  to  an  aver- 
age (tin-plates  excluded)  of  only  39.69  in  the  first  fiscal  year  after  the 
new  tariff,  1883-*84,  and  is  again,  1884-85,  over  40  per  cent.  By  that 
same  revision  the  duty  on  ore,  previously  20  per  cent.,  equaling  52  cents 
per  ton  on  the  average  price  of  1882-’83,  was  raised  to  75  cents,  and  the 
duty  on  pig-iron  was  decreased  only  5 per  cent.,  or  from  $7  to  $6.72 
per  ton.  As  the  revision  was  nominally  to  promote  reduction,  it  will  be 
seen  that  it  has  failed  entirely  of  its  purpose,  and  the  protectionists  are 
virtually  estopped  from  asking  the  continuance  of  what  was  an  outrage 
on  the  American  people. 

There  is  less  insistence  than  usual  in  the  present  utterance  of  the 
Association  on  the  labor  question.  In  view  of  the  notorious  facts  as  to 
the  condition  of  labor  in  the  mining,  iron  and  steel  manufacturing  in- 
dustries, this  was  perhaps  wise,  but  we  cannot  refrain  from  pointing 
out  some  significant  facts  in  this  direction.  The  Association  in  deprecat- 
ing a reopening  of  the  tariff  question  at  the  present  time  emphasizes  the 
fact  that  the  industries  of  this  country  have  shared  in  a “protracted 
period  of  depression  brought  about  by  world-wide  causes  and  common 
to  all  manufacturing  countries.”  It  is  evident  to  careful  and  candid 
observers  that  no  nostrum,  whether  the  most  extreme  protection  or  ab- 
solute tree  trade,  can  prevent  altogether  the  ups  and  downs  which  are 
a part  of  the  imperfect  constitution  of  human  kind.  But  all  experience 
shows  that  a high  tariff  increases,  while  a system  of  freedom  mitigates, 
the  results  of  these  varations.  Accordingly  we  find  that  while  in  Great 
Britain  417  furnaces  out  of  888  were  in  blast,  or  about  a half,  in  the 
United  States  only  233  furnaces  out  of  670  were  in  blast.  There  is  no 
industry  which  is  more  the  pet  and  beneficiary  of  protection  than  that 
of  mining  and  making  iron  and  steel.  There  has  been  no  industry  in 
which  half  time,  wage  reduction,  strikes,  and  riots  have  been  so  disas- 


528  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

trous  and  so  distressing.  The  figures  of  the  census  show  that  in  the 
year  1879  to  1880  the  total  wages  of  $9,538,117  paid  for  mining  iron  ore, 
distributed  among  31,668  men  and  boys,  averaged  but  $301  per  working 
year  each,  or  counting  the  labor  of  two  boys  equal  to  one  man,  $309  per 
year  each,  or  less  than  $1  for  each  working  day.  Since  that  time  wages 
have  been  again  and  again  reduced.  It  is  a notorious  fact  that  men  are 
working  in  the  mines  at  80  cents  a day  and  less,  and  it  is  even  said  that 
protectionist  employers  are  paying  as  little  as  60  and  50  cents  a day  for 
unskilled  labor.  The  difficulties  in  the  Hocking  Valley  are  still  fresh 
in  the  memory  of  the  people,  and  again  and  again  protected  employers, 
when  their  hands  have  objected  to  a reduction,  have  brought  in  foreign 
labor  to  oust  Amer  ican  workingmen.  In  some  branches  of  the  iron  in- 
dustry the  tariff  per  ton  is  actually  higher  than  the  price  paid  per  ton 
for  labor.  These  facts  throw  a strange  light  on  the  assertion  of  the  As- 
sociation that  in  foreign  countries  “ labor  is  more  at  the  mercy  of  capi- 
tal.” It  is  further  shown  by  the  returns  of  European  countries  that 
wages  of  European  iron  operatives  are  highest  in  free-trade  England, 
and  descend  through  France,  Germany,  and  Russia,  in  a scale  that  is 
fairly  in  inverse  proportion  to  the  tariff  rates,  which,  moderate  in  France, 
are  highest  of  all  in  Russia. 

These  facts  suggest  how  baseless  is  the  cry  that  the  tariff  is  needed 
to  protect  American  labor.  On  the  contrary,  what  American  labor 
needs  is  steadier  work  and  more  of  it,  which  can  only  be  had  bjT  freeing 
from  duty  those  articles  which  are  at  the  foundation  of  great  industries 
and  so  increasing  the  possibility  of  our  sales  and  therefore  of  returns  to 
our  labor  by  enabling  us  to  complete  successfully  with  England  in  the 
markets  of  the  world.  The  cry  is  as  baseless  as  that  made  during  the 
last  political  campaign  at  the  time  when  the  gentleman  who,  as  Pres- 
ident of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association,  heads  the  signatures 
to  its  report,  was  most  prominent  in  opposition  to  the  party  and  the 
candidate  which  the  election  put  in  power.  It  was  then  prophesied 
that  a change  of  administration  was  not  possible  in  this  country  with- 
out the  most  disastrous  financial,  commercial,  and  industrial  results. 
The  falsity  of  this  assertion  was  demonstrated  in  advance  by  the  fact 
that,  after  years  of  protection,  reductions  of  wages  and  all  the  indica- 
tions of  unsuccessful  industry  had  begun  to  show  themselves  before  the 
political  issue  of  the  year  had  taken  shape.  It  has  been  disproved 
since  the  event  by  the  fact  that  under  the  extraordinary  recuperative 
power  of  this  country,  and  despite  the  worst  of  tariffs,  there  has  been 
an  evident  revival  of  financial  and  commercial  prosperity.  When  the 
tariff  is  at  last  reformed  the  revelations  of  these  prophets  will  be  found 
as  baseless  as  were  their  predictions  that  a change  of  administration 
from  the  representatives  of  one  half  of  the  people  to  the  representatives 
of  the  other  half  of  the  people  meant  the  downfall  of  our  entire  national 
interests. 

We  can  do  no  better,  in  closing,  than  to  call  your  attention  to  the  ex- 
cellent statement  of  the  position  of  the  revenue  reformers,  made  by  Mr. 
Kasson,  of  Iowa,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  1866,  before,  under 
the  pressure  of  party  policy,  he  became  a protectionist,  in  which  he 
spoke  of  protection  as  “simply  a system  of  equal  robbery,  taking  from 
one  home  industry  to  pay  to  another.”  “ If  we  go  on,”  said  he,  “ in  the 
present  plan  of  adding  to  the  cost  of  everything  we  produce,  there  is 
not  another  country  on  the  face  of  the  globe  that  will  contribute  oue  cent 
to  enrich  the  people  of  the  United  States,  or  be  able  to  buy  a single  ar- 
ticle of  our  production.  It  is  an  attempt  against  the  laws  of  Providence 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


529 


to  force  the  people  of  this  country  to  pay  more  for  what  they  need  than 
the  laws  of  Providence  would  otherwise  require.  * * * The  title  of 

this  bill  should  be  changed  so  as  to  read,  ‘a  bill  to  prevent  the  diffused 
blessiogs  of  Divine  Providence  from  being  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  the 
United  States.’  # * * In  relation  to  the  article  of  iron  or  upon  any 

other  particular  branch  upon  which  you  increase  your  tariff,  you  imme- 
diately go  off  in  another  direction  and  increase  the  tariff  upon  other 
collateral  interests  affected  by  it;  and  so  you  follow  up  a gigantic  sys- 
tem of  bounties  upon  all  these  interests  upon  the  plea  of  protecting 
them.”  The  recent  letters  of  protectionist  interests  fully  confirm  this 
statement.  The  Iron  and  Steel  Association  asserts  that  “a  blast  fur- 
nace of  given  capacity  which  would  cost  $100,000  in  Europe  would  cost 
$200,000  in  our  country,”  and  the  linen-thread  manufacturers  claim  that 
they  work  at  double  the  cost  for  capital  over  their  foreign  competitors, 
and  against  the  great  disadvantage  of  a duty  of  40  per  cent,  on  the 
material  they  use.  The  letter  of  the  association  admits  that  after 
twenty-five  years  of  protection  “ labor  in  the  iron  industry  in  this  coun- 
try is  paid  less  in  1885  than  it  should  receive,  and  less  than  it  has  been 
accustomed  to  receive.”  That  it  is  not  the  labor  cost  which  prevents 
export  trade  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  our  export  of  iron  products  is 
chiefly  in  fine  hardware,  of  which  the  chief  cost  is  skilled  labor,  while 
the  coarser  product,  of  which  the  material  is  a greater  proportion,  can- 
not be  exported  because  of  the  high  cost  of  that  material. 

“ Protection  to  American  industry,”  we  are  now  told,  u is  a principle 
and  not  an  expedient.  # * * It  is  admitted  by  all  except  mere  theorists 
that  protection  aids  in  the  development  of  all  the  resources  of  the  coun- 
try; that  it  stimulates  the  investment  of  capital;  that  it  gives  steady 
employment  to  our  own  people,  &c.  * * * Iron  and  steel  manufacturers 
therefore  do  not  wish  to  see  iron  ore  placed  in  the  free  list,  or  bituminous 
coal  and  coke.”  These  statements  are  made  to  you  in  the  face  of  the 
fact  that  u protection  ” has  proved  weak  in  its  strongest  point — the  iron 
industry ; that  wages  have  steadily  declined  and  employment  become 
less  steady  after  many  years  of  “ protecting  American  labor  ”;  that 
many  leading  manufacturers  are  now  advocating  revenue  reform  in  the 
direction  of  lower  duties,  and  that  there  is  a division  in  the  very  ranks 
of  the  Iron  and  Steel  Association  itself,  despite  the  effort  of  that  letter 
to  belittle  that  division,  as  to  the  duty  on  iron  ore.  Eevenue  reformers 
are  fully  agreed  with  the  demand  that  sufficient  revenue  should  be  raised 
to  provide  for  the  national  defense  and  for  all  other  purposes  of  the 
public  welfare,  but  they  desire  that  the  methods  of  levying  our  customs 
or  other  revenue  should  no  longer  restrict  our  industry  and  play  into 
the  hands  of  protected  monopolists,  but  should  provide  in  the  most 
economical  manner  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  people. 

Iron  is  above  almost  any  of  our  products  used  peculiarly  in  productive 
consumption.  It  is  not  destroyed  in  consumption,  as  are  food  and 
clothing,  but  its  sole  use  is  in  making  the  railroads,  the  machinery,  the 
tools,  the  house  utensils,  which  are  in  every  case  the  means  of  other 
industries.  Every  increase  of  price,  therefore,  in  the  cost  of  iron  in- 
creases the  cost  of  the  products  of  our  industries  all  along  the  line;  to 
the  farmer,  the  cost  of  transporting  his  crops;  to  the  mechanic,  the  cost 
of  every  tool  he  uses;  to  the  woman  in  her  kitchen,  the  cost  of  every 
article  of  cooked  food  which  she  puts  upon  her  table ; and,  finally,  by 
increasiug  the  cost  or  price  of  everything  which  we  solicit  foreign  nations 
to  buy,  it  cuts  us  off  from  the  markets  of  the  world,  and  not  only  per- 
mits to  England,  in  iron  and  steel,  an  exportation  of  3,496,352  gross 
S.  Ex.  72 34 


530  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


tons,  or  three-quarters  as  much  as  our  entire  production,  but  enables 
everything  which  she  produces  to  be  made  cheaper.  In  other  words, 
the  industries  of  this  country  to-day  are  being  squeezed  to  death  in  this 
iron-bound  tariff. 

J.  B.  SARGENT, 

Sargent  & Co .,  New  Haven , Conn. 

EDW.  J.  SHRIVER, 

New  York. 


GRAHAM  McADAM, 

Late  president  Cromwell  Iron  Company , New  York. 
LINDLEY  VINTON, 

President  Vinton  Iron  Works , Indianapolis. 
M.  D.  HARTER, 

Treasurer  and  Superintendent  Aultman  & Taylor  Company , 

Mansfield , Ohio. 
JOHN  H.  MILLER, 

Secretary  and  Treasurer  Schreidt  & Miller  Company , 

Mansfield , Ohio. 
ISAAC  HARTER, 

President  Peerless  Beaper  Company , Canton , Ohio. 
W.  G.  GIBBONS, 

Wilmington , Del. 


And  others. 


Memorandum  A. — The  cotton-tie  duty. 

In  the  item  of  cotton-ties  the  association  complains  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  35  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  duty,  “ which  is  a little  more  than  one-half  cent  per  pound,”  and 
asks  an  increase  of  the  duty  to  one  and  one-tenth  cents  per  pound,  which  would  he 
equal  to  considerably  over  70  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Cotton-ties,  which  are  narrow 
light  iron  straps  with  a simple  clasp  at  the  end,  are  a modern  improvement  now  used 
in  marketing  the  cotton  crop  of  the  South,  and  possessing  many  advantages  over  the 
hemp  ropes  formerly  used.  When  the  iron  cotton-ties  first  came  into  use  a few  years 
since,  the  Pennsylvania  iron  manufacturers  claimed  that  these  straps  were  dutiable 
as  hoop-iron  at  one  and  one-half  cents  per  pound,  then  amounting  to  something  like 
70  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  The  Department  decided,  and  the  Secretary  reaffirmed  the 
decision,  that  the  article  was  a manufacture  “not  otherwise  provided  for”  and  was 
dutiable  at  35  per  cent.  In  the  course  of  the  discussion  Mr.  Wharton,  of  Philadelphia, 
declared  “ that  a decision  on  the  subject  in  favor  of  the  manufacturers  would  make 
a difference  of  perhaps  ten  or  twelve  cents  per  bale  of  cotton  to  the  planter” — in  other 
words,  that  the  planter  was  taxed  ten  or  twelve  cents  a bale  already  for  the  duty,  and 
at  a higher  rate  would  pay  twenty  to  twenty-four  cents  per  bale.  A ten-cent  tax  on 
each  bale  would  have  amounted  in  1883  to  nearly  $700,000,  and  in  1884  to  $570,000. 
This  amount  could  be  paid  in  only  one  of  two  ways — either  the  price  for  American 
cotton  being  fixed  largely  at  Liverpool,  in  competition  with  the  increasing  crop  of 
free-trade  India,  by  the  planter  taking  it  from  the  price  which  he  there  obtained,  so 
that  the  crop  would  net  over  half  a million  dollars  less  in  the  poorest  years — probably 
the  actual  result ; or  he  must  add  the  half  million  dollars  to  the  normal  price  of  the 
crop,  in  which  case  all  domestic  wearers  of  cotton  goods  would  have  had  to  cover  this 
cost  as  well  as  the  increased  profit  on  this  amount,  and  our  foreign  market  for  cotton 
goods  would  be  still  further  restricted  by  the  increased  price.  It  may  bo  added  that 
during  the  cotton  year,  1878-,79,  with  a crop  of  over  five  million  bales,  when  the  rate 
of  70  x>er  cent,  was  extorted,  a potential  raise  of  fully  $1,000,000,  the  Government  was 
benefited  to  the  amount  only  of  $1,227  by  the  tax  on  hoop  and  band  iron,  in  which  this 
item  was  then  included.  It  is  now  jiroposed,  withextraordinnry  effrontery,  to  again 
lay  this  onerous  tax  on  the  chief  crop  of  the  Southern  States  and  to  deprive  its  peo- 
ple of  the  advantage  of  greater  convenience  and  lowered  cost  which  came  with  the 
modern  improvement  of  substituting  iron  for  hemp.  In  that  substitution  the  indus- 
try of  making  hemp  rope  was  of  course  very  much  curtailed,  but  there  has  been  no 
protest  from  protectionist  sources  on  this  ground. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


531 


Memorandum  B. — The  duty  on  tin-plates. 

In  the  item  of  tin-plates,  the  association  is  dissatisfied  with  the  duty  of  1 cent 
per  pound  equal  last  year  to  27.88  ad  valorem,  and  asks  that  the  duty  should  be 
at  least  doubled.  On  the  contrary,  the  recent  conference  of  revenue  reformers,  at 
Chicago,  asked  that  tin-plate  should  be  put  on  the  free  list.  Both  sides  agree  that 
the  present  duty  is  a purely  revenue  one,  the  importations  for  last  year  having  been 
$18,931,072.70  and  the  collections  $5,278,848.25.  “Tin-plates,”  as  the  association 
states,  “are  only  sheet-iron  or  sheet-steel  coated  with  tin,  or”  (under  the  name  of 
terne-plates)  “with  a mixture  of  tin  and  lead,  and  it  will  not  be  contended  by 
any  intelligent  person  that  we  could  not  make  them  as  easily  as  they  are  made  in 
England  and  Wales.”  The  proportion  is  stated  at  5 per  cent,  of  tin  and  95  per 
cent,  sheet-iron.  “ We  can  obtain  tin,”  adds  the  association,  “from  the  same  coun- 
tries which  supply  Great  Britain.”  There  are  practically  no  commercial  deposits 
of  tin  in  the  United  States,  and  it  does  not  even  appear  by  name  as  a minor  metal 
in  the  compendium  of  the  tenth  census ; therefore  nobody  has  asked  for  a protect- 
ive duty,  and  tin  itself  is  on  the  free  list.  The  real  reason  we  do  not  make  tin- 
plate in  this  country  is,  however,  not  the  absence  of  higher  duty,  but  the  pres- 
ence of  the  onerous  duty  on  the  iron  entering  into  the  manufacture,  the  immediate 
material  for  their  manufacture,  sheet-iron,  being  dutiable  at  2|  cents  per  pound. 
If  iron  ore  were  put  on  the  free  list,  and  pig-iron  relieved  of  its  jjresent  duty,  it 
is  not  improbable  that  tin-plates  might  be  largely  manufactured  in  this  country, 
despite  the  fact  that  the  tin  itself  must  be  imported.  The  recommendation  of  the 
Chicago  conference  was  made,  however,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  tin-plate  is  at  the 
foundation  of  a great  American  industry,  the  manufacture  of  tinware,  entered  with 
its  collateral  trades  in  the  census  report  as  the  twenty-fifth  in  importance  of  our  in- 
dustries, and  that  a lower  price  of  the  material  would  doubtless  enable  us  to  compete 
in  foreign  markets,  because  of  our  suj)erior  skill  and  industrial  power,  with  the  tin- 
plate manufacturers  of  Great  Britain  itself.  The  price  of  tin-plate  is  a factor  in  a 
very  large  share  of  our  domestic  industries  and  our  exports.  Air-tight  tin  cans  have 
made  it  possible  to  preserve  for  domestic  use  or  for  profitable  export,  millions  of  dol- 
lars’ worth  of  fruits  and  vegetables,  to  the  profit  of  our  farmers,  as  well  as  of  oysters 
and  fish;  our  refined  petroleum  is  shipped  almost  exclusively  in  tin;  our  houses  are 
roofed  with  it,  and  the  poorest  man  in  the  country  must  buy  tin  utensils  for  his  kitchen. 
In  the  interest  both  of  American  manufacturers  and  of  American  wage-earners,  there- 
fore, it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  duty  on  tin-plate,  as  well  as  those  on  its  component 
elements,  will  be  lowered  rather  than  increased. 


Memorandum  C. — Cost  of  making  pig-iron  at  the  South. 

Recent  investigations  of  the  cost  of  making  pig-iron  in  the  South  throw  additional 
light  on  this  subject.  Mr.  R.  W.  Knott,  of  the  Louisville  Courier  Journal,  revenue  re 
former,  cited  in  that  journal  in  1884  figures  from  the  books  of  an  Alabama  furnace 
producing  1,786  tous  per  month,  showing  that  pig  was  actually  produced  at  a cost  of 
$9.77  per  ton  (including  $4.76  for  coke,  $1.39  for  ore,  80  cents  for  limestone,  $1  67 
wages,  61  cents  officers’  salaries,  53  cents  taxes,  stock,  fuel,  and  miscellaneous  ex- 
penses). Mr.  R.  P.  Porter,  of  the  Philadelphia  Press,  protectionist,  was  sent  South  to 
counteract  these  figures,  but  his  own  report,  in  his  paper  of  June  4,  1884,  gave  among 
his  figures  a cost  of  $11.90  at  Sloss  furnace,  $9.20  Alice  furnace,  $11.90  Cowan  furnace. 
Mr.  J.  C.  Bayles,  of  the  Iron  Age,  in  his  presidential  address  at  Chattanooga,  before 
the  American  Institute  of  Mining  Engineers,  made  an  estimate  of  $12.35,  being  for  ore, 
$3  (2£  tons,  at  $1.25) ; for  coke,  $5  (two  tons,  at  $2.50) ; for  limestone,  one  ton,  85  cents ; 
for  wages  and  salaries,  $2.50 ; for  interest  and  expense,  50  cents ; for  repairs  and  re- 
placements, 50  cents.  Since  the  furnaces  at  Birmingham,  Ala.,  neither  mine  coal  or 
ore,  nor  quarry  limestone  for  themselves,  but  buy  their  materials,  the  cost  of  this  part 
of  the  product  is  directly  ascertainable  by  any  one  who  can  get  at  the  facts  on  the  sj>ot. 
Mr.  Lindley  Vinton,  president  of  the  Vinton  Iron  Works,  Indianapolis,  visited  these  fur- 
naces in  May,  1885,  and  describes  the  region  astkemostpromising  field  foriron  making 
in  the  world — rich  coal  in  thick  veins  running  horizontally  near  thesurface,  covering 
an  area  of  11,000  square  miles ; along  its  borders  rich  hematite  and  fossil  ores  and  beds 
of  limestone,  its  surface  covered  with  forests  for  charcoal,  the  furnaces  of  the  best 
models,  with  Whitwall  stoves,  and  every  facility  for  making  the  best  use  of  the  ore  ; 
limestone,  coal,  and  charcoal  at  the  furnace-doors.  The  ore,  a red  and  brown  hematite, 
is  delivered  in  the  stock-house,  guaranteed  to  contain  50  per  cent,  of  iron,  at  90  cents 
per  ton,  limestone  at  90  cents  per  ton,  coal  at  $1.15  per  ton ; “ the  material  for  a ton 
of  iron  can  be  purchased  for  from  $4.25  to  $5,  delivered  at  the  stock-house.”  Using 


532  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Mr.  Bayles’s  figures  as  to  quantity,  with  actual  figures  instead  of  estimates  of  price, 
we  have  then  for  ore  ( 2 \ tons,  at  90  cents)  $1.98  instead  of  $3;  for  coke  (two  tons,  at 
$2  to  $2.25,)  $4  or  4.25,  instead  of  $5  ; for  limestone,  90  cents,  instead  of  his  85  cents,  a 
net  decrease  of  $1.37  or  $1.47,  making  the  cost -of  material  $6.88  or  $7.38.  The  esti- 
mate for  quantity  of  coke  used  is  large.  Adding  Mr.  Bayles’  own  estimate  ($3.59)  for 
labor,  salaries,  expense,  and  replacement,  we  have  the  total  cost  $10.38  to  $10.88  per 
ton.  Mr.  A.  S.  Hewitt  estimates  the  labor  cost  at  furnace  at  $1.40  per  ton,  a still  fur- 
ther reduction.  It  was  stated  that  the  cost  of  ore  to  Mr.  Morris  was  25  cents  per  ton 
royalty  (reaching  as  high  as  $10,000  per  acre  to  the  Pratt  Iron  and  Coal  Company, 
owning  the  mines),  29  cents  mining,  25  cents  transportation  to  furnace,  the  selling 
price  being  90  cents,  delivered  at  stock-house.  The  monopoly  of  the  Pratt  Iron  and 
Coal  Company  makes  the  cost  of  coke  high,  although  the  coal  is  mined  by  convicts 
whose  wages  are  bare  subsistence.  Coke  is  quoted  at  $2.25  per  ton,  but  costs  the  fur- 
nace men  in  quantities  nearer  $2,  whereas,  with  a fair  profit  to  the  coal  mines,  it 
should  not  cost  over  $1.25  to  $L.50.  Connellsville  coke  is  quoted  in  Pennsylvania  at 
$1.50  f.  o.  b.,  and  has  been  as  low  as  $1.15.  The  figures  of  Southern  production  are 
criticised  as  making  insufficient  allowance  for  repairs  and  replacements,  interest  and 
adequate  profit,  and  there  is  probably  some  force  in  these  criticisms.  But  taking  all 
these  allowances  into  consideration,  it  is  evident  that  pig  can  be  made  there  profita- 
bly at  between  $10  to  $11  per  ton.  The  laborers  at  these  furnaces  and  coke-ovens, 
pets  of  “ protection,’'  are  paid  75  to  90  cents,  a few  $1  per  day ; but,  taking  the  aver- 
age wages  paid  according  to  the  census  report  of  1880,  when  the  coke  chargers  got 
$1.49  and  the  laborer  $1.27  per  day,  and  the  labor  figures  were  given  as  labor  for 
mining  1.6  tons  of  coal  38  cents,  coking  43|  cents,  with  an  average  consumption  of  1£ 
tons  of  coke  per  ton  of  iron  ; for  mining  ore  30  cents  to  $1  per  ton  ; limestone  never 
over  40  cents  per  ton — Mr.  Vinton  figures  the  labor  cost  in  a ton  of  iron  at  labor  in 
coke  75  cents  to  $1 ; labor  in  ore  CO  cents  to  $2;  labor  in  limestone  20  cents  to  40 
cents ; labor  at  furnace  $1  to  $1.50,  a total  of  $3.05  to  $4.90.  All  the  rept  of  the  cost 
of  pig  is  cost  of  transportation  of  materials  (partly  labor),  royalty  to  the  mine  owner, 
interest  and  profit  to  the  capitalist.  The  landholder,  who  has  perhaps  bought  land 
ot  the  Government  at  $1  to  $5  per  acre,  is  the  great  beneficiary  of  the  protective  sys- 
tem. Next  to  him  come  the  transportation  companies,  with  their  watered  stocks  and 
monopoly  tariffs.  It  is  their  partnership  which  causes  the  $25  shares  of  Lake  Supe- 
rior mines  to  sell  at  $300,  w hile  laborers  get  $1  a day  or  less. 

Memorandum  D. — Would  not  the  American  iron  industry  have  been  built  up  without  the 

tariff f 

It  is  taken  for  granted  throughout  the  letter  of  the  Association  that  the  building  up 
of  the  iron  industry  is  necessarily  a matter  of  tariff  protection.  The  history  of  the 
iron  industry  both  in  England  and  this  country  does  not  confirm  this  position.  It 
was  not  until  1750,  because  of  the  destruction  of  her  forests  in  obtaining  char- 
coal, that  England  repealed  the  duty  on  pig-iron,  at  which  date  the  number  of  fur- 
naces in  England  and  Wales  had  fallen  to  59,  producing  only  17,350  tons  of  iron,  or 
less  than  halt  the  product  of  a single  furnace  to-day.  The  American  colonies  had  in 
the  mean  time  begun  to  produce  iron,  and  as  soon  as  the  duty  was  removed  we  began 
to  export  it  to  England,  so  that  before  the  Revolution  the  United  States  had  become 
one  of  the  leading  nations  in  the  production  of  iron.  The  discoveries  and  inventions 
of  Darby,  Smeaton,  Watts,  Neilson,  Payne,  Cort,  Huntsman,  and  Bessemer  in  improv- 
ing processes  and  machinery,  coupled  with  the  commercial  freedom  of  England,  have 
kept  her  in  the  fore-front  of  iron  production,  so  that  by  1854  she  produced  half  the 
iron  of  the  world.  Our  iron  industries  were  in  the  mean  time  making  fair  progress 
under  a system  of  comparative  commercial  freedom,  for  the  duty  on  manufactured 
iron  under  the  first  tariff  of  1789  was  but  per  cent.,  increasing  in  1792  to  10,  in 
1794  to  15,  in  1804  to  17-£  per  cent.  In  1810  our  iron  products  amounted  to  $14,000,000. 
It  was  not  until  the  period  of  the  war  with  Great  Britain  that  the  duty  was  run  up 
to  30-35  per  cent,  and  specific  duties  were  introduced.  Up  to  1816  there  had  been  no 
protection  of  pig-iron  in  this  country,  and  iron  ore  was  not  mentioned  until  the  tariff 
of  1883,  although  in  1867  it  had  been  made  dutiable  at  20  per  cent,  under  a Treasury 
decision  that  it  wTas  a mineral  substance  “not  otherwise  provided  for.”  The  impor- 
tance of  free  ore  was  pointed  out  in  a letter  from  Abram  S.  Hewitt  to  the  citizens  of 
Morris  County,  New  Jersey,  December  30, 1881,  in  which  he  declined  to  sign  a petition 
in  favor  of  an  increase  of  duty  on  the  ground  that  it  was  based  on  a total  misconception 
of  the  facts.  He  explained  that  much  American  ore  contained  of  phosporus  some- 
what over  the  half  of  one  per  cent.,  which  is  enough  to  prevent  its  conversion  into 
steel  by  the  Bessemer  process,  and  that  by  importing  foreign  ores  practically  free  from 
phosphorus,  and  mixing  the  two  in  equal  proportions,  one  additional  ton  of  American 
ore  could  be  utilized  because  of  each  ton  of  foreign  ore  imported. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


533 


Mr.  Jos.  Wharton,  of  the  Bethlehem  Iron  Company,  testified  before  the  Tariff  Com- 
mission (Report,  p.  1285)  that  “the  use  of  this  foreign  ore  enables  us  to  apply  to  the 
Bessemer  steel  manufacture  large  quantities  of  American  ore,  which  alone  could  not 
he  used,’2  and  Mr.  S.  M.  Felton,  president  of  the  Pennsylvania  Steel  Company,  said 
(p.  1289)  that  his  company  had  examined  454  deposits  of  alleged  Bessemer  ore  in  this 
country  and  found  but  one  available  mine,  capable  of  furnishing  only  from  300  to  400 
tons  per  month.  These  two  leading  companies  have  within  the  past  two  years  in- 
vested sums  said  to  approximate  three  millions  of  dollars  in  developing  deposits  of 
Bessemer  orein  Cuba,  and  this  interest  was  largely  concerned  in  the  proposed  Spanish 
treaty.  The  necessity  for  foreign  ore  is  further  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  house  of 
W.  D.  Marvel,  New  York,  is  importing  and  selling  to  Pennsylvania  iron-masters  car- 
goes of  a high-grade  Bessemer  ore,  at  $7  free  on  board  cars  at  Baltimore,  which  costs 
laid  down  at  Pittsburgh  about  $9. 25 ; whereas  Lake  Superior  ore,  fully  as  high  iu 
iron,  costs  at  Pittsburgh  only  about  $8,  freight  paid.  The  present  iron  duties  are  in 
fact  contrary  to  the  interests  of  a large  part  of  the  iron  industry : the  makers  of  ma- 
chinery, hardware,  &c.,  are  hurt  by  the  tariff ; the  makers  of  bar-iron  and  steel  rail 
get  little  margin  from  it;  while  pig,  tbeir  material,  is  raised  in  price  almost  to  the 
extent  of  the  duty  (“  Scotch  warrants”  being  quoted  at  Glasgow  at  42s.  7 d.,  or  $10.52, 
while  the  corresponding  “iron  certificates”  here  were  at  $17.37  in  the  New  York 
Metal  Exchange);  and  the  final  result  is  the  great. profit  of  the  monopolists  of  coal 
and  ore  deposits.  The  duty  on  the  foreign  pig  which  our  manufacturers  chiefly  need 
is  about  60  per  cent. 

Memorandum  E. — Hardware  manufacture  and  export. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Sargent,  of  New  Haven,  Conn.,  one  of  the  largest  hardware  manufactur- 
ers in  the  world,  stated  at  the  Chicago  Conference  that  “we  must  import  certain 
qualities  of  pig-iron,  say  25  per  cent,  of  the  total  used,  and  melt  with  American  pig- 
iron  to  produce  the  best  mixture  for  hardware.  The  high  duty,  amounting  to  over 
60  per  cent.,  makes  the  cost  of  the  foreign  iron  so  high  that  when  combined  with  the 
American  iron  the  mixture  is  so  expensive  as  to  debar  us  from  exporting  the  coarser 
products  of  the  mixture ; therefore  the  American  pig-iron  producers  are  debarred 
from  supplying  iron  but  for  little  of  the  commerce  of  the  world.  With  American  pig- 
iron  even  at  its  present  prices,  the  right  to  import  Scotch  pig-iron  free  of  duty  would 
do  much  toward  exporting  the  coarser  and  heavier  manufactures  made  from  the 
mixture  to  all  parts  of  the  world.  As  the  tariff  is  we  are  obliged  to  content  ourselves 
by  exporting  only  the  lighter  and  more  finished  merchandise — that  which  has  much 
of  its  cost  in  labor  and  finish.  In  order  to  export  largely  of  the  more  finished -goods, 
we  must  first  open  and  cultivate  an  export  trade  with  foreign  non-manufacturing  na- 
tions, by  supplying  them  with  the  coarser  and  heavier  goods  for  their  every-day  use 
in  their  homes  and  fields. 

“American  manufacturers  are  placed  in  substantially  the  same  disadvantages  in 
respect  to  other  common  metals,  as  copper,  zinc,  and  lead,  as  they  are  in  respect  to 
iron. 

“Therefore,  merchandise  made  from  any  of  the  metals,  the  principal  or  a large  part 
of  the  cost  of  which  consists  in  material,  cannot  be  exported.  This  includes  castings 
of  iron  and  brass,  with  but  little  finish,  coarsely  finished  machinery,  anvils,  chains, 
sledge-hammers,  common  hinges,  and  nearly  all  other  metal  goods,  the  principal  cost 
of  which  is  not  in  labor.  Merchandise,  the  principal  cost  of  which  consists  of  labor 
or  ‘finish,’  can  be,  and  is,  quite  largely  exported  from  the  United  States  iu  competi- 
tion with  ‘pauper  labor’  products  of  Europe,  notwithstanding  the  high-tariff  cost  of 
the  materials  from  which  they  are  made.  This  includes  saws  of  every  description, 
and  nearly  all  kinds  of  mechanics’ tools  of  good  quality  and  high  finish,  steam-en- 
gines, agricultural  machines  and  tools,  and  house-builders’  hardware  of  the  better 
grades  especially,  and  that  numerous  variety  of  hardware  articles  made  in  the  valley 
of  the  Naugatuck  in  Connecticut.  The  world  has  been  supplied  with  Connecticut 
clocks,  but  latterly  the  Germans,  with  their  cheaper  metals,  with  machinery  copied 
from  that  of  the  New  Haven  Clock  Company,  and  with  some  mechanics  who  were 
trained  in  the  employ  of  that  company,  are  successfully  competing  for  a share  in  the 
world’s  brass  clock  markets,  and  even  sending  their  clocks  to  this  country.  All  the 
protection  the  New  Haven  Clock  Company  asks  for  is  free  trade  in  materials,  not  ob- 
jecting in  that  case  to  free  trade  in  clocks.  Now,  under  the  working  of  our  tariff 
laws,  the  sheet  brass  used  by  the  Germans  is  made  from  United  States  copper,  sold  in 
Europe  for  several  years  considerably  lower  in  price  than  the  United  States  manu- 
facturers were  allowed  to  buy  it.” 


534  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


[J.  Schuster,  beveled  plates  and  mirrors.] 

New  York,  January , 1886. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : * 

Sir  : In  reply  to  your  circular  of  July  30,  1885,  I would  say,  that  un- 
less there  is  a duty  levied  on  beveled  plates,  either  specific  or  ad  valo- 
rem, the  beveling  industry  (which  is  in  its  infancy)  will  be  oneof  the  past. 

There  was  a duty  of  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem  collected  on  beveled 
plate- glass  previous  to  1884,  as  per  paragraph  135,  schedule  B. 

By  the  decision  of  the  United  States  Court  in  January,  1884,  the 
above  duty  on  beveled  plates  was  considered  unlawful,  as  in  said  par- 
agraph nothing  was  said  about  beveled  plates,  and  they  were  thereafter 
admitted  free  of  duty.  Since  then  the  beveling  factories  have  be.en 
l.\ing  idle,  the  consequence  of  which  is  the  men  who  are  employed  at 
this  trade  are  idle  and  their  families  are  destitute. 

We  cannot  compete  with' foreign  manufacturers  under  these  circum- 
stances on  account  of  their  cheap  labor,  which  is  one-third  of  what  we  pay 
in  this  country  5 also,  the  materials  are  much  cheaper. 

I would  respectfully  suggest  a specific  duty,  as  per  list  inclosed. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

J.  SCHUSTEK. 


[Inclosure.] 

Cents. 


16  running  inches  and  not  exceeding  23  inches 7 

All  under  above 5 

24  running  inches  and  not  exceeding  31  inches 10 

32  running  inches  and  not  exceeding  39  inches 14 

40  running  inches  and  not  exceeding  47  inches 18 

48  running  inches  and  not  exceeding  55  inches 25 

56  running  inches  and  not*  exceeding  63  inches 35 

64  running  inches  and  not  exceeding  72  inches 55 


All  over  these  dimensions,  60  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 


[The  Schoellkopf,  Aniline  and  Chemical  Uo.,  and  others,  coal-tar  dyes  and  colors.'] 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  October  5, 1885. 

Hou.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir  : We  respectfully  invite  your  attention  to  the  inclosed  memorial, 
relating  to  the  present  condition  of  the  coal-tar  industry  in  the  United 
States.  We  are  actively  engaged  in  collecting  further  facts  and  data 
pertaining  to  this  industry,  and  at  the  jiroper  time  shall  take  the  liberty 
of  asking  for  a personal  hearing  before  your  honor  or  before  such  per- 
son or  persons  that  you  may  designate. 

We  are,  most  respectfully, 

The  Schoellkopf  Aniline  and  Chemical  Co., 

I.  F.  SCHOELLKOPF, 
President . 


Statement  relative  to  the  condition  of  the  aniline  color  industry. 

The  present  condition  of  the  aniline  color  manufactories  in  the  United  States  is 
such  that  oven  colors  for  the  production  of  which  the  raw  material  is  imported  free 
of  duty  can  only  be  produced  at  a very  small  profit. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


535 


Granting  that  the  duty  of  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  (on  the  regular  European  mar- 
ket value)  was  honestly  paid,  it  would  he  possible  to  manufacture  profitably  only 
colors  for  whose  production  duty  free  raw  material  is  employed. 

It  is  a fact  that  since  the  tariff  reduction  of  July  1,  1883,  many  agents  of  European 
aniline  color  manufacturers  in  this  country  are  no  longer  agents,  but  act  as  and  really 
are  copartners  of  such  manufacturers ; thus  goods  are  not  invoiced  at  their  market 
value,  but  at  cost  of  production. 

The  fact  that  aniline  colors  are  sold  in  this  country  at  but  a very  slight  increase  in 
price,  and  often  at  the  same  figures,  as  in  Europe,  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  such 
existing  relations. 

Many  of  these  colors,  differing  widely  in  price,  are  so  much  alike  in  appearance  that 
only  close  and  various  tests  will  show  the  difference,  and  it  is  obvious  that  lack  of 
time  and  facilities  on  the  part  of  .the  custom-house  official  prevents  such  exhaustive 
tests  in  most  instances,  and  tends  greatly  to  facilitate  the  importation  of  such  colors 
below  value. 

The  remedy  for  removing  the  obstacles  in  the  path  of  this  very  important  branch 
of  industry,  and  the  means  of  helping  it  to  become  one  of  our  great  manufacturing 
interests,  would  be  a specific  duty  with  such  coal-tar  products  not  colors,  or  their 
bases,  as  are  used  in  this  industry  free  of  duty. 

This  would  be  the  cause  of  a grand  development  of  the  aniline  color  industry,  and 
would  also  be  of  untold  benefit  to  the  American  chemical  industry  in  general. 

The  coal-tar  color  manufacturers  are  great  consumers  of  many  kinds  of  chemicals; 
it  necessarily  follows  that  the  general  development  of  such  an  industry  would  give  a 
general  impetus  to  the  production  of  such  articles  in  this  country  as  are  now  imported. 

Thousands  of  working  men  would  find  remunerative  employment,  and  large  sums 
would  be  gained  by  the  country  through  these  industries. 

The  principal  obstacles  to  a free  development  of  the  chemical  and  especially  the 
aniline  color  industry  in  this  country  are  essentially  as  follows  : (1)  High  wages  (main 
cause).  (2)  Great  expense  of  the  plant  and  heavy  loss  caused  by  wear  and  tear. 
(3)  Insufficient  duty  on  manufactured  colors.  (4)  High  tax  on  alcoholic  spirits. 

We  callyour  attention  to  these  four  principal  causes,  and  shall  make  comparisons 
with  the  European  situation. 

(1)  HIGH  WAGES. 

It  should  be  understood  that  this  has  not  only  reference  to  regular  workmen  en- 
gaged in  the  manufacture  of  the  products,  but  also  to  men  whose  work  it  is  to  erect 
and  keep  in  repair  works  of  this  kind. 

The  latter  is  as  great  an  expense  as  the  regular  routine  labor,  as  regular  mechanics 
are  permanently  employed  for.  this  purpose,  such  as  carpenters,  machinists,  masons, 
engineers,  pipe-fitters,  blacksmiths,  tinsmiths,  &c.  Wages  of  mechanics  doing  ten 
hours’  work  are  from  $2  to  $3  per  diem. 

These  same  men  are  paid  in  Germany  for  twelve  hours’  work  from  75  cents  to  $1  per 
diem.  In  America  employers  are  obliged  to  pay  for  sober  and  permanent  laborers 
$1.75  to  $2  per  day  at  ten  hours.  In  Germany  these  same  men  only  command  about 
72  cents  per  day  of  twelve  hours. 

For  an  aniline  color  manufacturer  in  the  United  States  to  do  a business  of  $25,000 
per  month  the  expense  for  labor  would  be  $7,000  per  month. 

In  Germany  the  expense  would  not  be  more  than  about  $2,500. 

It  has  now  been  shown  that  the  wages  for  regular  labor  and  repair  in  an  American 
aniline  color  manufactory  is  very  nearly  threefold  those  in  a German  one. 

(2)  COST  OF  PLANT. 

The  same  can  be  said  of  the  erection  and  construction  of  such  works,  and  can  be 
traced  directly  to  the  high  wages  of  the  mechanic. 

Furthermore,  it  is  essential,  on  account  of  the  danger  by  fire,  that  such  works  should 
be  entirely  constructed  of  brick  or  stone,  if  only  for  the  reason  of  obtaining  the  neces- 
sary insurance. 

The  necessary  apparatus  are  made  of  iron,  copper,  lead,  or  Avood,  and  are  of  such  a 
complicated  nature  that  only  the  most  experienced  and  competent  mechanics  can  be 
intrusted  with  the  erection  of  the  same.  For  such  labor  we  are  compelled  to  pay  four 
times  as  much  as  in  Germany. 

The  plaut  of  an  aniline  works  with  a capacity  for  doing  a business  of  $25,000  per 


month  would  represents  capital  as  follows: 

For  land $30,  000 

For  buildings  with  necessary  fire-extinguishing  apparatus 140, 000 

For  machinery,  apparatus,  &c 160, 000 

For  raw  material,  goods  in  process  of  manufacture,  and  finished  stock 160,000 


536  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Ten  per  cent,  per  annum  must  be  allowed  for  wear  and  tear.  The  same,  however, 
amounts  to  considerably  more  during  the  period  of  its  first  development. 

Considering,  now,  that  only  10  per  cent,  be  figured,  it  would  amount  to  $2,500  per 
month,  whereas  the  allowance  for  the  same  manufactory  in  Germany  would  be  hardly 
more  than  $1,000. 

The  rate  of  interest  is,  further,  much  higher.  Stock  and  plant  comprising  the  sum 
of  $490,000,  hearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  6 per  cent.,  is  equal  to  $2,500  per  month, 
whereas  in  Germany  the  interest  for  an  equal  manufactory  would  he  at  the  highest 
hut  $1,100  per  month.  We  would  earnestly  comment  upon  the  risk  being  taken  by 
those  engaging  in  such  enterprises.  Insurance  corporations  refuse,  more  or  less,  to 
write  policies,  and  when  they  do,  they  do  so  at  exorbitant  rates. 

To  illustrate,  the  Schoellkopf  Aniline  and  Chemical  Company,  in  which  now  some 
$600,000  is  invested,  can  only  obtain  insurance  to  the  amount  of  $150,000  to  $200,000, 
notwithstanding  that  they  are  obliged  to  pay  5 per  cent,  premium  on  buildings  and 
their  contents,  which  are  deemed  extra  hazardous. 

The  conditions  in  Europe  are  different.  There  the  insurance  companies,  through 
their  many  years’  experience  with  the  processes  and  nature  of  the  manufacture,  do 
not  hesitate  to  grant  full  insurance  at  very  much  lower  rates. 


(3)  TOO  LOW  DUTY  ON  MANUFACTURED  COLORS. 

If  we  take  the  figures  obtained  in  divisions  1 and  2,  we  arrive  at  the  following  re- 
sult: 


IN  THE  UNITED  8TATES. 


The  expense  and  outlay  of  constructing  a plant  with  the  capacity  for  doing  a busi- 
ness of  $25,000  per  month  is : 


Buildings  and  machinery $300, 000 

Land 30, 000 

Working  capital 160, 000 


490, 000 

The  monthly  running  expenses  of  such  a manufactory  would  be : 

Wages $7,000 

Wear  and  tear 2, 500 

Interest 2,500 


Making  a total 12, 000 


IN  GERMANY. 

The  expense  and  outlay  of  constructing  a plant  with  a capacity  of  doing  a busi- 
ness of  $25,000  per  month  is : 


Buildings  and  machinery $130,000 

Land  20, 000 

Working  capital 110, 000 


Total 260, 000 

The  monthly  running  expenses  of  such  a manufactory  would  be: 

Wages $2,500 

Wear  and  tear 1, 000 

Interest 1,100 


Total 4,600 


Consequently,  with  a business  of  $25,000  per  month  the  German  manufacturer  has 
an  advantage  over  the  American  to  the  extent  of  at  least  $7,400  per  month,  or  about 
30  per  cent.  This  is  without  taking  into  consideration  a greater  risk,  greater  expense, 
and  other  outlays  during  the  period  of  its  development. 

We  would  also  state  that  the  present  prices  of  aniline  colors  cannot  be  considered 
as  average,  as  manufacturers  in  Europe  have  been  suffering  for  the  last  two  years 
from  an  overproduction,  causing  them  to  dispose  of  their  excess  at  a loss. 

It  is  impossible  in  this  country  to  manufacture  colors  with  a profit,  the  raw  mate- 
rial for  which  pays  a duty  of  20  to  30  per  cent. 

Almost  all  aniline  colors  at  present  come  under  this  latter  class.  For  instance,  the 
well-known  “green  coal-tar  colors.”  These  colors  are  at  present  sold  in  Europe  for 
from  $1.20  to  $1.60  per  pound.  Should  the  full  duty  now  be  paid  wo  would  have  an 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


537 


advantage  over  the  European  manufacturers  of  from  42  to  56  cents  per  pound,  hut 
under  present  conditions  it  is  impossible  to  manufacture  these  colors  in  this  country. 
One  of  the  oldest  and  most  experienced  chemists,  whose  very  successful  engagement 
in  one  of  the  first  German  manufactories  covers  a period  often  years,  was  some  years 
ago  the  first  to  arrive  at  a practical  method  of  manufacturing  in  quantities  these 
faniline  greens.  He  had  made  a specialty  of  these  colors  for  many  years  and  was 
thoroughly  posted  on  all  improvements  that  have  been  made.  But  even  with  the  facil- 
ities of  one  of  the  largest  aniline  factories  of  this  country  he  was  unable  to  produce 
them  at  a profit  for  reasons  above  specified.  The  same  can  be  said  of  many  other  col- 
ors, that  the  present  duty  is  an  insufficient  protection  forthe  American  manfacturer. 

(4)  HIGH  TAX  ON  ALCOHOLIC  SPIRITS. 

No  aniline  color  can  be  profitably  manufactured  in  the  United  States  for  whose 
production  alcohol  is  necessary.  A relief  from  this  high  tax  would  be  of  great  ad- 
vantage to  the  American  industry  in  general. 

A high  tax  exists  in  Germany  upon  alcohol,  but  not  upon  such  as  is  used  for  manu- 
facturing purposes. 

A difference  in  the  value  of  coal-tar  colors  varies  to  such  an  extent  that  we  would 
urge  the  division  of  them  into  classes.  As  the  most  exact  and  probably  the  only 
practicable  classification;  we  would  respectfully  present  the  following: 

(1)  All  coal-tar  colors  or  their  bases  not  being  naphthaline  derivatives,  60  cents 
per  pound. 

(2)  All  coal-tar  colors  or  their  bases  being  naphthaline  derivatives,  30  cents  per 
pound. 

(3)  All  coal-tar  colors  being  anthracene  derivatives  in  a dry  state,  60  cents  per 
pound. 

For  paste  such  as  alizarine,  for  20  per  cent,  paste,  10  cents  per  pound. 

Class  1 would  be  composed  of  colors  whose  value  per  pound  in  a pure  and  unadul- 
terated state  would  vary  from  $1  to  $8,  and  whose  average  value  would  be  $2. 

Class  2 would  be  composed  of  colors  whose  value  in  a pure  and  unadulterated  state 
would  vary  from  40  cents  to  $1.40  per  pound,  and  whose  average  price  would  be  about 
70  cents. 

Class  3 would  be  composed  of  artificial  alizarines  and  all  anthracene  derivatives. 

Alizarine  is  and  has  been  duty  free  owing  to  its  being  a patented  product,  the 
claim  being  made  that  this  substance  was  analagous  to  madder.  This  claim  being 
disproved,  the  patent  was  declared  void  about  one  year  ago. 

Anthracene,  the  basis  and  principal  raw  material  for  alizarine,  exists  here  in  great 
quantities,  but  remains  entirely  worthless  on  account  of  the  free  entry  of  alizarine. 

We  refer  in  classes  1 and  2 to  the  color  in  a pure  and  unadulterated  condition,  as 
coal-tar  colors  are  frequently  adulterated  as  much  as  75  per  cent.  For  this  reason 
alone  we  cannot  consider  the  present  prices  normal. 

We  claim  that  with  a healthy  reaction  in  trade  and  a return  of  conditions  to  a nor- 
mal basis,  our  proposed  duty  wrnuld  on  the  whole  hardly  amount  to  more  than  35  per 
cent,  ad  valorem. 

We  now  submit  additional  facts  concerning  the  chemical  and  aniline  color  in- 
dustry. 

The  duty  on  all  aniline  colors  previous  to  July  1,  1883,  was  50  cents  per  pound,  and 
35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  without  any  classification. 

After  the  revision  of  the  tariff  various  manufacturers  deemed  it  inadvisable  to  in- 
vest any  further  capital  in  improvements  and  enlargements  of  their  works,  and  were 
gradually  obliged  to  suspend  and  ret  ire. 

Among  these  were:  Dan.  Dawsons’  Sons,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  Empire  Aniline  Dye 
WorkR,  Brooklyn,  E.  D.,  N.  Y. ; John  Holliday,  Brooklyn,  E.  D.,  N.  Y.  ; Williams 
Brothers  & Eakin,  Woodliaven,  L.  I.,  N.  Y. ; Hoerlin  & Kupferberg,  Brooklyn,  E.  D., 
N.  Y ; Bloede  & Rathbone,  Parkersburgh,  W.  Va. 

This  state  of  affairs  was  and  is  of  a much  more  serious  nature  to  the  remaining  con- 
cerns— the  Shoellkopf  Aniline  and  Chemical  Company,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.  the  Albany 
Aniline  Company,  Albany,  N.  Y. ; Heller  & Merz,  Newark,  N.  J.  ; Hudson  River  Ani- 
line Color  works,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

These  establishments  have  a capital  invested  of  about  $1,000,000,  and  had  they  de- 
cided to  suspend  it  would  have  resulted  in  entire  loss.  Instead  of  adopting  this  lat- 
ter course,  they  have  made  every  possible  effort  to  carry  the  work  on.  They  sent  to 
Europe  for  chemists  of  great  experience  in  foreign  manufactories  who  were  capable 
and  practical  t-pecialists,  also  forforemen  and  workingmen  who  had  been  employed  in 
foreign  manufactories  for  years. 

The  best  and  most  modern  apparatus  they  could  obtain  were  also  imported.  Suf- 
fice it  to  say  that  the  greatest  effort  has  been  made  to  make  this  industry  a success  in 
this  country.  How  fruitless  all  this  has  been  is  shown  by  the  condition  of  manufac- 
tories in  this  country  to-day.  Their  production  has  been  largely  curtailed  and  ren- 


538  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


dered  unremunerative.  It  is  a fact  that  their  works  will  have  to  succumb  within  a 
very  short  time  if  they  are  not  granted  the  required  protection,  thereby  causing  the 
chemical  industry  in  general  a heavy  blow. 

With  a normal  state  of  affairs,  the  duty  we  advocate  for  class  I would  amount  to 
more  than  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  only  upon  a few  colors.  Whereas,  upon  many  col- 
ors a duty  of  35  per  cent,  would  amount  to  considerable  more  than  $1  per  pound.  Ev- 
ery expert  whose  opinion  is  not  prejudiced  by  European  manufacturers  or  importers 
in  this  country  must  concur  in  the  feasibility  of  our  classification,  and  acknowledge 
that  it  is  the  only  practicable  and  just  one. 

The  proof  that  the  duty  of  35  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  colors  coming  under  class  2 
is  too  low  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  very  few  of  these  colors  are  manufactured 
here. 

The  objection  that  might  be  raised  to  this  duty  would  be  that  many  of  the  colors 
coming  under  class  2 are  patented,  and  consequently  would  make  them  unnecessarily 
expensive.  In  opposition  to  this  we  assert  that  many  of  these  colors  are  not  patented, 
and,  furthermore,  that  recently  patents  have  been  taken  out  in  this  country  by  Ameri- 
can manufacturers  which  wiil  enable  them,  provided  the  protection  is  granted,  to 
manufacture  all  shades  of  colors  coming  under  class  ‘A 

Class  3.  Notwithstanding  that  within  the  past  year  the  patents  on  these  colors  have 
been  declared  void,  no  one  has  even  thought  to  manufacture  them  in  this  country, 
there  being  no  protection  to  encourage  the  establishment  of  the  very  expensive  plants 
required. 

No  fear  need  be  entertained  that  the  proposed  duty  would  perceptibly  increase  the 
market  value  of  Hies©  colors.  The  competition  encouraged  by  the  presence  of  immense 
quantities  of  raw  material,  which  is  essential  for  many  colors,  would  become  so  great 
that  the  prices  would  regulate  themselves. 

Attention  should  also  be  called  here  to  the  fact  that  aniline  colors  have  great  tinc- 
torial power.  The  more  expensive  ones  coming  under  class  1,  are  often  dyed  from  1 
to  300  ; that  is,  for  every  300  pounds  of  wool  only  1 pound  of  color  is  required.  Thus 
the  consumer  of  textile  fabrics  would  have  to  meet  a very  small  increase  of  expense, 
if  any,  and  the  development  of  this  industry  would  certainly  overbalance  any  such 
trifling  expenditure. 

By  the  revision  of  the  tariff  in  1883,  the  duty  was  lowered  so  much  that  it  practi- 
cally ruined  the  business  of  manufacturing  coal-tar  colors  in  this  country. 

We  are  positively  informed  that,  should  a new  tariff  revision  be  contemplated, 
European  manufacturers  will  make  great  exertion  to  reduce  the  duty  still  further. 
Should  they  succeed  in  this  seemingly  impossible  project,  the  death  blow  would  be 
given  to  the  coal-tar  industry  for  years  to  come. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

The  Albany  Aniline  Company,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  F.  V.  M.  Hudson,  Treas. 

Heller  & Merz,  New  York. 

Hudson  River  Aniline  Color  Works,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  Louis  I.  Waldman, 
Treas. 

The  Schoellkopf  Aniline  and  Chemical  Company,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  I.  F. 
SCHOELLKOPF,  Prest: 

In  addition  to  the  herein-mentioned  changes  in  the  present  tariff  on  coal-tar  dyes 
and  colors,  we  would  respectfully  commend  the  following  on  articles  pertaining  to 
the  manufacture  of  these  colors  ana  dyes  : 

Commercial  aniline  oils,  such  as  aniline,  toluidine,  xylidine,  &c.,  or  mixtures  there- 
of, free. 

Coal-tar  products,  not  colors,  not  specially  provided  for,  free. 

Benzole  and  nitro-benzole,  free. 

Nitrite  of  soda,  |c.  per  lb. 


[The  Foreign  Fruit  Exchange  of  the  City  of  New  York,  fruits.] 


Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 


New  York,  January  15,  1886. 


Sir  : The  importers  of  green  and  dried  fruits  doing  business  in  this 
city,  desiring  to  express  their  views  in  the  event  of  a revision  of  the 
present  tariff,  asked  that  a joint  meeting  of  the  committees  on  trade 
and  information  and  statistics  of  the  Foreign  Fruit  Exchange  of  the 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  539 

City  of  New  York  be  called  to  determine  what  change  in  the  duties 
might  be  most  advantageous. 

Therefore,  the  undersigned  officers  of  this  exchange,  and  members 
of  these  committees,  after  proper  and  mature  investigation,  and  acting 
under  the  authority  of  said  exchange,  respectfully  recommend  that  the 
following  schedule  of  rates  be  fixed  on  the  articles  specified  herewith, 
viz : 

Our  first  conclusion  and  request  is  that  oranges,  lemons,  and  grapes 
of  Mediterranean  production  be  placed  on  the  free  list.  If  said  request 
does  not  meet  with  your  approval,  we  then  beg  that  the  duty  on  all 
green  and  dried  fruits  shall  be  made  specific,  and  suggest  that  the 
duties  be  fixed  as  follows  : 

Boxes  of  oranges: 

Per  box 

Per  half  box. 

Boxes  of  lemons : 

Per  box 

Per  half  box. 

Oranges,  per  case 
Lemons,  per  case . 

Oranges,  per  barr< 

Grapes : 

Per  barrel 


Per  half  barrel 12J 

Secondly : Raisins,  currants,  dates,  figs,  prunes,  plums,  and  prunelles,  per  pound  1 
Thirdly : 

Preserved  or  candied  citron,  per  pound 3 

Preserved  or  canclieS  orange-peel,  per  pound 3 

Preserved  or  candied  lemon-peel,  per  pound 3 

Fourthly : 

Almonds  in  the  shell,  per  pound 2 

Almonds  shelled,  per  pound 5 

Walnuts  and  filberts,  per  pound 1 


We  believe  it  to  be  the  policy  of  the  Government  to  reduce  the  ex- 
isting excessive  surplus  revenue,  and  as  a principle  believe  that  specific 
duties  afford  the  best  protection.  We  consider  that  there  is  no  conflict 
of  any  consequence  in  these  modifications  with  any  American  indus- 
tries, and  there  seems  every  reason  to  admit  these  articles  under  the 
proposed  rates  of  duty.  It  appears  an  undisputed  fact  that  the  great 
consumption  of  these  articles  is  by  the  middling  and  poorer  classes  in 
all  parts  of  the  country ; and  it  would  seem  to  be  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance, and  at  the  same  time  desirable  under  existing  circumstances, 
that  they  should  be  put  within  the  reach  of  all  consumers  at  the  lowest 
possible  cost.  Asking  your  consideration  of  these  recommendations, 
and  trusting  the  same  will  meet  with  your  approval, 

We  remain,  sir,  your  obedient  servants, 

Jno.  C.  Giles,  president;  Ciias.  H.  Parsons,  vice-president; 
Frederick  J.  Eobinson,  treasurer;  Wilton  Eose,  secretary. 
Committee  on  Trade. — Levi  Pawling,  of  Willet  0.  Ward  & Co.,  Jo- 
seph T.  McDowell,  of  McDowell,  Pierce  & Co. ; W.  H.  Wester- 
velt,  of  W.  H.  Westervelt  & Co.;  Henry  T.  Wills,  of  Wills  & 
Drummond  ; Eobt.  Henderson,  of  Eobt.  Henderson  & Co. 
Committee  on  Information  and  Statistics. — Joseph  L.  Arguimbau, 
of  Zuricalday  & Arguimbau  ; Frederick  S.  Eobinsou,  of  Fred- 
erick S.  Eobinson  & Co.;  Henry  T.  Wills,  of  Wills  & Drum- 
mond; Horace  W.  Day,  of  Sgobel  & Day ; Peter  J.  Thorne,  of 
Peter  J.  Thorne. 


Cents. 

10 

5 

15 

7i 

20 

25 

40 

25 


540  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

[The  Foreign  Fruit  Exchange  of  the  city  of  New  York,  fruits.'] 


New  York,  February  3,  1886. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington: 


Sir:  The  undersigned  officers  of  the  Foreign  Fruit  Exchange  of  this 
city  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  favor,  20th  ultimo 
(L.  G.  M.),  addressed  to  Mr.  Frederick  S.  Eobinson,  treasurer  of  our  ex- 
change, and,  in  obedience  to  your  request,  beg  to  furnish  your  Depart- 
ment with  the  desired  information  and  suggestions,  which  you  are  at 
liberty  to  communicate  to  Congress  and  otherwise  give  publicity  thereto 
as  you  may  deem  proper. 

We  again  respectfully  and  urgently  recommend  that  oranges,  lemons, 
and  grapes  be  placed  on  the  free  list,  for  the  reasons  stated  in  our  pre 
vious  respects ; but  if  said  request  does  not  meet  the  approval  of  Con- 
gress, we  then  beg  that  the  duty  on  all  green  and  dried  fruits  be  made 
specific,  said  system  affording  the  best  protection  to  American  interests, 
and  take  the  liberty  to  suggest  that  the  duties  be  fixed  as  follows : 


GREEN  FRUIT. 


Oranges  and  all  species  of  oranges : 

In  packages  of  capacity  not  exceeding  11  cubic  feet. per  package . . 5 

In  packages  of  capacity  exceeding  11  cubic  feet  and  not  exceeding  21  cubic 

feet per  package . . 10 

In  packages  of  capacity  exceeding  21  cubic  feet  and  not  exceeding  5 cubic 

feet per  package . . 20 

In  packages  of  capacity  exceeding  5 cubic  feet  and  not  exceeding  71  cubic 

feet  (beiug  the  largest  dimension  so  far  received) per  package..  30 

Packages  of  capacity  exceeding  71  cubic  feet,  additional  for  every  additional 
cubic  foot  or  fraction  thereof per  package . . 5 

Lemons  and  all  species  of  lemons: 

In  packages  of  capacity  not  exceeding  11  cubic  feet per  package..  71 

In  packages  of  capacity  exceeding  11  cubic  feet  and  not  exceeding  21  cubic 

feet per  package..  15 

In  packages  of  capacity  exceeding  21  cubic  feet  and  not  exceeding  5 cubic 

feet per  package..  30 

Packages  of  capacity  exceeding  5 cubic  feet,  additional  for  every  additional 

cubic  foot  or  fraction  thereof per  package. . 10 

Oranges  and  all  species  of  oranges,  lemons  and  all  species  of  lemons,  in  bulk, 
$1.60  per  thousand. 

Grapes : 

In  packages  of  capacity  not  exceeding  11  cubic  feet per  package. . 12^ 

In  packages  of  capacity  exceeding  11  cubic  feet  and  not  exceeding  3 cubic 

feet per  package . . 25 

Packages  of  capacity  exceeding  3 cubic  feet,  for  every  additional  cubic  foot 
or  fraction  thereof  additional per  package. . 10 

The  above  duties  we  consider  equal  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  20  per 
cent,  assessed  on  some  of  the  imported  fruit  under  the  existing  tariff, 
the  duty  being  levied  on  the  fruit  only  and  not  on  the  charges,  and  if, 
in  the  wisdom  of  Congress,  the  duty  on  other  merchandise  is  to  be  re- 
duced, we  beg  the  same  treatment  for  green  fruit. 

It  is  absolutely  impracticable  to  suggest  a rate  of  duty  by  weight,  for 
the  following  reasons : 

Green  fruit  being  of  a perishable  nature,  decay  attracts  moisture,  and 
packages  will  weigh  more  than  when  dry  and  the  fruit  sound,  unless 
containing  dry-rot,  so-called  j in  which  case  the  package  will  weigh  less. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


541 


Packages  will  contain  lighter  fruit  than  others,  and  weigh  more  or 
' less  accordingly.  Packages  of  same  mark  will  weigh  more  or  less,  de- 
pending on  decay  or  size  of  fruit. 

The  several  sizes  of  the  fruit  also  contribute  to  the  weight,  more  or 
less.  Packages,  therefore,  not  being  uniform  in  weight,  all  importations 
would  have  to  be  weighed  at  the  expense  of  the  revenue  and  serious 
detriment  to  importers,  as  fruit  suffers  by  handling,  and  the  delay  in 
weighing  would  hinder  the  rapid  delivery  required  by  the  trade,  and 
would  be  another  serious  matter.  We  therefore  beg  that  no  such  idea 
should  be  entertained,  being  detrimental  to  the  interest  of  the  revenue, 
as  well  as  to  the  importers. 

We  further  recommend  the  following  specific  duties: 

Cents. 


Brazil  nuts 

Chestnuts 

Peanuts,  in  the  shell 

Peanuts,  shelled 

Filberts,  shelled 

Cocoanuts  (as  now) . . 


per  pound..  1 

do....  1 

do 1 

do 2 

do....  2 

Free. 


and  beg  to  refer  you  to  our  previous  report  regarding  dried  fruits  and 
nuts  not  mentioned  above. 

We  are  unable  to  make  suggestions  about  comfits,  sweetmeats,  &c., 
they  being  outside  of  our  line  of  business. 

We  have  the  honor  to  remain,  your  obedient  servants, 

John  0.  Giles,  President;  Chas.  H.  Parsons,  Vice-President;  Fred- 
erick S.  Robinson,  Treasurer. 

Committee  on  Trade. — Levi  Pawling,  of  Willet  0.  Ward  & Co.; 
Joseph  T.  McDowell,  of  McDowell,  Pierce  & Co.;  W.  H.  Westervelt,  of 
W.  H.  Westervelt  & Co.;  Henry  T.  Wills,  of  Wills  & Drummond;  Robt. 
Henderson,  of  Robt.  Henderson  & Co. 

Committee  on  Information  and  Statistics. — Joseph  L.  Arguimbau, 
of  Zuricalday  & Arguimbau  ; Frederick  S.  Robinson,  of  Frederick  S. 
Robinson  & Co.;  Henry  T.  Wills,  of  Wills  & Drummond;  Horace  W. 
Day,  of  Sgobel  & Day  ; Peter  J.  Thorne,  of  Peter  J.  Thorne. 

John  C.  Giles,  ex  officio , of  Lawrence,  Giles  & Co. 


[Frederick  S.  Robinson  & Co.,  fruits.] 

New  York,  February  5, 1886. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington: 

Sir  : We  take  the  liberty  to  submit  further  reasons  besides  those 
given  by  the  Foreign  Fruit  Exchange  of  this  city  against  assessing  duty 
on  green  fruit  by  weight. 

The  bulk  of  the  importations  now  being  done  by  steamers,  cargoes 
generally  consist  of  20,000  to  30,000  packages,  with  500  to  1,000  differ- 
ent marks,  representing  a large  number  of  shippers  and  consignees. 
Each  mark  of  fruit,  therefore,  would  have  to  be  weighed  separately, 
and  as  the  wharfage  facilities  are  very  much  restricted,  same  would  be 
almost  impossible  or  would  certainly  greatly  retard  the  prompt  delivery 
demanded  by  the  trade  and  subject  buyers  to  the  risk  of  the  fruit  suf- 
fering on  the  wharf  from  the  heat  in  summer  aud  frost  in  winter,  thus 
subjecting  the  purchasers  to  serious  losses,  whose  interests  should  be  con- 


542  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


sidered,  as  well  as  in  a sanitary  point  of  view,  having  recently  been  proved 
by  our  board  of  health  by  confiscating  fruit  in  a frozen  condition,  which,  v 
as  you  can  readily  see,  would  be  a serious  matter  for  the  purchasers  and 
consignees  of  the  fruit. 

Duty  by  measurement  fully  protects  the  revenue.  Packages  of  green 
fruit  are  of  standard  sizes,  and  no  difficulty  therefore  can  be  experi- 
enced in  the  collection  of  the  correct  duty,  as  it  has  been  proved  under 
the  existing  tariff  on  the  portion  paying  specific  duty  recommended  by 
the  late  Tariff  Commissioners  at  our  suggestion. 

In  our  opinion,  however,  fruit  being  an  element  of  health,  it  should 
receive  every  consideration  by  the  Government  in  order  that  it  may  sell 
cheap  and  be  within  reach  of  our  laboring  classes.  We  know  it  to  be 
a fact  that  cheap  fruit  is  an  inducement  for  heads  of  families  unable  to 
spend  much  for  luxuries  to  buy  fruit  for  their  families  when  within 
reach  of  their  means  in  preference  to  spending  five  to  ten  cents  for 
drinks,  therefore  encouraging  temperance.  Green  fruit  ought,  there- 
fore, also  on  said  account  go  on  the  free  list  $ and,  as  agriculture  in  this 
country  requires  no  protection,  land  being  cheap  and  labor-saving  ma- 
chines reducing  the  cost  of  production  to  a level  below  the  cheap  labor 
but  higher  cost  of  land  in  Europe,  this  country  can  compete  with  all 
lands  without  protection,  and  the  welfare  of  our  community  should 
therefore  receive  consideration. 

You  can  make  use  of  this  communication  as  you  may  think  best. 

We  have  the  honor  to  remain,  your  obedient  servants, 

FEEDEEICK  8.  EOBINSON  & CO. 


[Eob’t  Friedrichs,  iron  and  steel  wire  works.] 

New  York,  January  30,  1886. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury , Washington , D.  G. : 

Sir:  Having  written  to  you  before  in  regard  to  the  rate  of  duty  on 
Bessemer  steel  wire  rods  in  coils  and  loops,  I now  respectfully  refer  you 
to  our  statistics  of  imports  of  merchandise,  page  623,  and  for  a better 
understanding  give  here  a copy  of  same: 

1885. 


Quantity. 

Value. 

Duty.  1 

Price 
per  lb. 

Wire  rods  (rivet,  screw,  nail,  and  fence)  round  in 
coils  and  loops,  not  lighter  than  No.  5 wire  gauge, 
valued  at  3 J cents  per  pound  or  less,  duty  T6ff  cents 
per pound: 

Iron 

Pounds 
i 67,  274,  447 

$1; '3-0,  309  00 

1 403,  646  68 

Cents. 

*o 

Steel 

1 77,  836,  830 

1,161,323  16 

$473,  020  91 

*1  ft 

Wire  lods  of  steel,  not  elsewhere  specified,  duty  45 

per  cent 

Wire  of  iron,  smaller  than  No.  5 and  not  smaller  than 
No.  10  wire  gauge,  duty  1£  cents  per  pound 

115,  211,  035 

1.433,145  00 

644,  915  25 

2,  679 

179  00 

40  19 

*<Vo 

Wire  of  steel,  duty  1£  cents  per  pound 

667,  666 

58,  753  60 

10, 014  99 

*8* 

About. 


revision  of  the  tariff. 


543 


You  will  see  at  once  that  steel  wire  rods  are  cheaper  in  price  than  iron 
wire  rods  that  pay  both  a duty  of  cents  per  lb.,  and  the  steel  wire  rods 

that  are  entered  at  45  per  cent,  are  still  cheaper,  whereas  the  wire  of 
iron  smaller  than  5 wire  gauge  is  cheaper  than  the  wire  of  steel  smaller 
than  5 wire  gauge,  both  paying  a duty  of  1J  cents  per  pound. 

Now,  the  tariff  says : u And  provided  further,  that  no  article  made  from 
iron  or  steel  wire,  or  of  which  iron  or  steel  wire  is  a component  part  of 
chief  value,  shall  pay  a less  rate  of  duty  than  the  iron  or  steel  wire  from 
which  it  is  made  either  wholly  or  in  part,”  &c. 

It  is  a blank  on  the  same  page,  623,  for  imports  of  wire  rods  of  steel 
at  45  per  cent,  for  the  fiscal  year  1884  ; it  was  then  held  that  they  had  to 
pay  a duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound,  which  would  be  on  the  115,211,035 
pounds,  $1,728,165.52.  As  the  above  proviso  has  reference  to  wire, 
although  the  tariff  also  says,  6C  manufactures,  articles,  or  wares  not  spec- 
ially enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  composed  wholly  or  in  part 
of  iron,  steel,  copper,  lead,  nickel,  pewter,  tin,  zinc,  gold,  silver,  plati- 
num, or  any  other  metal,  and  whether  partly  or  wholly  manufactured, 
45  per  cent,  ad  valorem;”  also  steel  not  specially  enumerated  or  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Inasmuch  as  the  above  statistics  show  that  they  manufacture  abroad 
steel  wire  rods  in  coils  and  loops  cheaper  than  iron  wire  rods  of  the  same 
kind,  it  will  be  worth  while  to  find  out  this  kind  of  steel,  for  the  benefit 
of  our  own  manufacturers,  and  a better  protection  of  our  so-called  “ in- 
fant industries”  in  steel  wire,  &c. 

Your  obedient  servant, 


KOBT.  FB1EDBIOHS. 


544  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


SUGGESTIONS. 

The  following  suggestions,  having  in  view  the  limiting  of  appropria- 
tions, the  simplification  of  our  tariff  system,  the  reduction  of  Federal 
taxation,  and  the  promotion  of  American  industry,  have  been  submitted 
as  reflecting  the  views  of  citizens  prominent  as  students  of  political 
economy,  and  who  have  made  these  problems  a special  study: 

It  would  be  consistent  with  the  previous  practice  of  the  executive 
department  to  submit  suggestions  for  a reduction  of  taxation  and  for 
simplifying  the  collection  of  the  revenue.  To  that  end,  specific  taxes 
may  well  be  set  off  against  specific  necessary  expenditures.  This  being 
done,  a more  accurate  estimate  may  be  made  of  the  excess  of  revenue 
which  would  be  at  the  disposal  of  Congress,  to  be  applied  either  to  the 
reduction  of  the  national  debt,  to  national  expenditures  which  it  is  at 
the  option  of  Congress  to  make  or  not  to  make,  or  which  excess  of  rev- 
enue may  be  considered  unnecessary,  and  may,  therefore,  be  wisely 
abated  by  a commensurate  reduction  of  taxation. 

If  it  were  expedient  to  consider  only  the  simple  question  of  obtaining 
with  the  least  cost  the  revenue  required  for  the  support  of  the  Govern- 
ment economically  administered,  the  problem  would  be  a very  simple 
one  ; but  it  will  be  apparent  to  every  one  that  full  consideration  must 
be  given  to  the  fact  that  the  effect  of  a complex  tariff,  assessed  at  high 
rate  during  a long  term  of  years,  has  been  to  gravely  alter  the  direction 
of  industry,  and  that,  next  to  the  harm  which  may  ensue  from  the  un- 
wise imposition  of  high  taxes,  may  be  the  injury  which  might  be  caused 
by  an  injudicious  method  of  removing  them.  For  instance,  a very  large 
proportion  of  the  dutiable  imports  consists  of  articles  which,  whether 
in  a crude  or  finished  condition  as  imported,  are  yet  necessary  to  and 
enter  into  the  processes  of  domestic  industry.  If  the  imposition  of  taxes 
were  continued  upon  such  articles,  while  those  upon  the  finished  manu- 
factures weredisproportioually  reduced,  a reduction  of  revenue  might 
indeed  ensue,  but  it  would  be  accompanied  by  such  disastrous  effects 
as  to  more  than  neutralize  the  benefits  of  a reduction,  compassed  in  so 
injudicious  a manner. 

If  the  question  were  only  how  to  obtain  the  necessary  revenue  with 
the  least  cost,  the  following  form  might  be  adopted.  In  filling  up  the 
form  with  corresponding  figures  use  will  be  made  of  the  estimates  for 
appropriations  for  the  next  fiscal  year,  and  of  the  revenue  derived  from 
certain  specific  sources  during  the  last  fiscal  year.  As  the  last  and  pres- 
ent have  been  years  of  great  business  depression,  it  may  well  be  assumed 
that  the  revenue  may  increase  with  the  increase  of  our  population  in  at 
least  as  great  a measure  as  it  may  become  necessary  to  increase  future 
appropriations. 

Whether  or  not  the  specific  revenue  set  off  against  specific  expendi- 
tures is  derived  from  taxes  which  it  would  be  judicious  to  continue  to 
assess  and  to  appropriate  in  this  way  is  not  now  the  question  at  issue. 
Suffice  it  that  by  making  a statement  in  this  form  much  confusion  may 
be  avoided,  and  the  choice  of  taxes  to  be  entirely  abated,  reduced,  or 
continued  will  be  rendered  much  more  simple.  This  table  is  in  the 
nature  of  a study  rather  than  a conclusion. 

It  may  happen  that  after  due  inquiry  and  consideration  it  will  prove 
expedient  to  advise  the  reduction  or  entire  abatement  of  some  of  the 
very  taxes  which  are  herein  specifically  set  apart  in  the  form  to  meet 
necessary  expenditures,  and  to  continue  some  of  the  duties  which  are 
included  in  the  final  summary  as  perhaps  representing  an  unnecessary 
amount  of  revenue. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  545 

The  whole  object  of  these  propositions  is  to  present  the  subject  in  the 
simplest  form  in  order  to  obtain  the  plainest  statement. 

It  is  believed  that  all  recent  inquiries  concerning  the  tariff  have,  in 
part,  failed  for  the  reason  that  certain  elementary  questions  have  not 
been  kept  conspicuously  in  view. 

These  questions  may  be  stated  in  these  terms : How  can  the  revenue 
which  is  necessary  to  the  support  of  the  Government,  economically  ad- 
ministered, be  secured  with  the  least  interference  with  the  pursuits  of 
the  people  and  with  the  least  obstruction  to  American  industry  ? 

In  other  words,  how  can  American  industry  best  be  promoted  by  ex- 
emption from  unnecessary  taxation,  to  the  end  that  the  great  advan- 
tages which  the  country  enjoys  in  the  production  of  the  most  important 
commodities  at  a relatively  low  cost  as  compared  to  other  countries 
when  measured  in  terms  of  labor,  and  therefore  at  a high  rate  of  re- 
muneration to  those  who  do  the  work,  may  find  their  widest  application, 
and  that  we  may  share  the  markets  of  the  world  unimpeded  by  unnec- 
essary taxes  on  imported  articles  which  enter,  in  combination  with  our 
own,  into  the  processes  of  our  own  industry. 

’ In  pursuance  of  these  objects  the  following  tables  are  submitted: 

The  estimates  for  the  next  fiscal  year  are : 

For  legislative,  executive,  judicial,  and  consular  and 

diplomatic  expenses $23,  780,  402  22 

For  the  repairs,  maintenance,  and  completion  of  public 

buildings  which  are  used  in  the  civil  service 6, 997, 899  17 


Total 30,  778, 301  W 


The  revenue  derived  from  the  internal 
tax  on  spirits  in  the  fiscal  year  ended 

June  30,  1885,  was  $67,  511,  208  63 

The  estimate  for  the  support  of  the  Army  for  next  fiscal 

year  is 25,  356,  998  01 

For  fortifications  and  other  defensive  work,  the  sup- 
port of  West  Point,  &c 5, 290, 357  68 

Total ! . 30,  647, 355  69 


The  revenue  derived  from  the  internal 
tax  on  tobacco  during  the  fiscal  year 

ended  J une  30, 1885,  was $26,  407,  088  48 

The  estimate  for  the  support  of  the  Navy  for  next  fiscal 

year  is 15,  769,  431  74 

For  the  construction  of  war  vessels,  torpedoes,  &c  . . . 19,  785, 263  81 


Total  35, 554, 695  55 

The  iuternal  revenue  from  fermented 
liquors  in  fiscal  year  1885  was $18,  230,  782  03 

Balance  brought  down  from  the  above 

classification  15,  268,  726  51 

Add  duties  on  imported  tobacco,  cigars, 
and  snuff  during  fiscal  year  1885  . . 7,  356,  369  49 

On  distilled  spirits  and  wines 6,609,564  65 

On  malt  liquors 546, 999  35 


Excess  of  revenue 
a Ex.  72 35 


29,  801,  660  00 


546  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


It  thus  appears  that  the  appropriations  for  the  conduct  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  for  the  support  of  the  Army  and  Navy,  including  all 
public  buildings  and  works,  according  to  the  standard  considered  ade- 
quate by  the  last  Congress,  might  be  covered  by  a revenue  from  dis- 
tilled spirits,  wines,  malt  liquors,  and  tobacco,  with  a remainder  of 
$20,801,660. 

We  may  next  consider  the  necessary  permanent  expenditures  for  In- 
dians, collecting  revenue  from  customs,  refunds,  and  miscellaneous 
estimates  for  next  fiscal  year,  $29,803,214.84,  against  which  may  be  set 
off  the  permanent  receipts,  which  are  derived  from  other  sources  than 
customs  and  internal  revenue  taxation,  viz: 

Sales  of  public  lands ; tax  on  national  banks ; interest, 

&c.,  from  Pacific  railroad  companies;  fees — consular, 
letters  patent,  and  lands;  customs  fees,  fines,  penal- 
ties, &c. ; profits  on  coinage,  assays,  &c. ; revenues 
of  District  of  Columbia;  sales  of  Government  prop- 
erty, &c.,  which  for  the  fiscal  year  1885  amounted  to, 


say $29,  620, 042  00 

To  which  add  remainder  above 29, 801,  660  00 

59, 421,  702  00 

Deduct 29, 803, 214  84 

Balance  to  be  carried  forward  . . : 29, 618, 487  16 


The  next  necessary  items  of  expenditure  are : 

Interest  on  the  public  debt 48,  500, 000  00 

Appropriation  for  pensions,  which  is  to  be  applied  to  the 
payment  of  the  current  annual  and  arrears  of  pen- 
sions, estimates  for  next  fiscal  year 75, 830,  200  00 


124, 330,  200  00 

Deduct  balance  brought  forward 29, 618,  487  16 


94,711,712  84 

Against  which  may  be  set  off  the  customs  revenue 
derived  from  (fiscal  year  1885) — 

Sugar, molasses,  and  confectionery. . . . .$52, 184, 743  95 

Manufactures  of  silk 14,  000,  210  04 

Fruits  and  nuts 3,  672,  292  59 

Bice 1,619,523  24 

Fancy  articles 2, 079,  901  91 

Manufactures  of  wool 24, 294, 938  90 

97,  851, 610  63 


Remainder  (excess  of  revenue) 3, 139,  897  79 

Having  thus  shown  how  adequate  provision  could  be  made  for  the 
necessary  expenditures  by  taxes  (few  in  number  and  relatively  inex- 
pensive in  the  cost  of  their  collection,  if  such  should  be  the  policy 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  547 

chosen  by  Congress),  it  now  remains  to  treat  other  expenditures,  which 
may  be  greater  or  less,  according  to  the  will  of  Congress,  to  wit : 

District  of  Columbia 

Sinking  fund 

Biver  and  harbor  improvements 

Beduction  of  the  national  debt 

Miscellaneous  

Against  which  may  be  set  oft*  the  customs  revenue  de- 
rived from  duties  not  appropriated  in  the  foregoing 
schedule.  The  total  revenue  from  customs  in  the 
fiscal  year  ended  June  30, 1885,  was $181, 471, 939  34 

Deduct  customs  revenue  set  aside  as  above,  viz : 

From  sugar,  molasses,  &c $52, 184,743  95 

Spirits,  wines,  and  malt  liquors 7,156,564  00 

Tobacco,  cigars,  and  snuff 7,356,369  49 

Silks 14,000,210  04 

Fruits  and  nuts  3, 672, 292  59 

Eice...... 1,619,523  24 

Fancy  articles  2,079,901  91 

Manufactures  of  wool 24,294,938  90 


Amounting  to 112,364,544  12 

There  remains  an  excess  of 69, 106,395  22 


The  question  now  presented  is,  to  what  extent  can  the  taxation  which 
yields  this  revenue  be  removed,  in  what  manner  ought  such  reduction 
to  be  made,  and  what  would  be  the  probable  effect  upon  the  revenue 
of  the  changes  in  the  rates  of  duty  which  may  be  proposed  ? 

No  better  preparation  could  have  been  made  for  the  intelligent  con- 
sideration of  this  question  than  the  classification  of  imports  and  of  the 
revenue  derived  therefrom  which  was  prepared  in  the  Bureau  of  Sta- 
tistics by  the  direction  of  the  late  Secretary  McCulloch. 

In  order  to  determine  what  action  should  be  taken  in  respect  to  the 
duties  upon  imports,  the  same  classification  will  now  be  adopted,  with 
a few  changes. 

Dutiable  imports  in  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 18‘84,  and  revenue 
derived  therefrom  in  detail : 


CLASS  A : Duties. 

Articles  of  food  and  live  animals . . . . $58, 170, 340 

Deduct  sugar,  rice,  fruits  and  nuts,  the  revenue  from  which 
has  been  appropriated 55, 016, 869 


Eemainder 3,153,471 


Class  B : 

Articles  in  a crude  condition,  &c 11, 283, 785 


548  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Class  C : 

Articles  wholly  or  partially  manufactured  necessary 
for  use  as  materials  in  the  manufacturing  and  me-  Duties, 
chanic  arts $27, 670, 649 


Class  D : 

Manufactures . . . 50, 544, 453 

Deduct  revenue  on  manufactures  of  wool,  &c.,  already 
assigned 27, 478, 400 


Remainder 23, 066, 053 


Class  E : 

Articles  of  voluntary  use,  &c . . . 42, 168, 679 

Deduct  revenue  on  silks,  &c.,  already  assigned 34,991,428 


7, 177, 251 

SUMMARY. 


Class  A : 

Total  duties $58, 170, 340 

Less  assigned 55, 016,  869 


Net 3,153,471 

Class  B : 

Total  duties  11, 283,  785 

Less  assigned 


Net 11,  283,  785 

Class  C : 

Total  duties 27,  679,  649 

Less  assigned 


Net 27,679,496 

Class  D : 

Total  duties 50,  544, 453 

Less  assigned -. 27, 478, 400 


Net 23,066,053 

Class  E : 

Total  duties 42, 168,  679 

Less  assigned 34, 991, 428 


Net 7, 177, 251 


Net  customs  revenue  unassigned  to  specific  purposes  72,  360, 209 

This  revenue  is  subject  to  being  appropriated,  as  already  stated,  to — 
Sinking  fund. 

Rivers  and  harbors  and  miscellaneous. 

Reduction  of  debt. 

Abatement  of  taxation,  &c. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


549 


In  view  of  prospective  improvement  in  business  in  general,  the  in- 
crease of  population,  the  gain  in  revenue  which  will  ensue  from  lower 
rates  on  many  articles,  and  other  causes  of  what  is  known  as  the  ‘‘elas- 
ticity of  the  revenue”  under  a judicious  and  well-adjusted  system  of 
imports,  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that  the  sum  of  $50,000,000  of  the 
foregoing  net  amount  of  revenue,  which  has  not  beeu  assigned  to  speci- 
lic  appropriation,  may  be  devoted  to  the  reduction  of  taxation. 

The  tables  following  suggest  in  what  manner  the  “ free  list  ” may  be 
enlarged  so  as  to  promote  domestic  industry,  while  still  leaving  a sur- 
plus of  revenue  to  be  devoted  to  further  reduction  of  taxation. 


CLASS  A.' — ARTICLES  OF  FOOD  (DUTIABLE), 


550 


KEPOET  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


ptmod 

•raoo  pnu  ogioads  jo 
!}U0p}Ainba  uiaaop3A  py 


. ift  (NO 

(4  00 

US  C4  CO 


(N  CO 
O W 
O ni 

(N  r-l 


b a 

o O 
05  <3 

U>U) 
B b . 


®'-S 


1 
pj 
o 

Pi 

S © fl 
- - © B,© 

O 05  « 

•P'3  m+s  h 

n • © a © 

B- © Bi 


« IN  <N 


.C-B 


© © 4P 

B«B.fl^  » 

32SS8 

« © B,  B*  Be 


H H 
o o 
B3B5 

B B 
© © 
BB 
05  m 
-b  -b 
B B 
© © 
© © 


■©  - . - 
H • ■ 'B 
c3  . . ~ 

• • g 
■ . o 
w _ Pi 
a,  b'"3  b 
2b© 
« © © Pi 
B B ft+= 
© © O fl 
« p,«o  © 
>A  O — • ^ 
K5  Q i 


T3 
B 
3 
o 

. ft 

■P43  B 
B B © 
© © B> 


© © B S 

B»©  © 

K5  O W W 

COININ  lO 


Shelled 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


551 


O 30  00  Tf<  05  in 

cm  a>  r-i  co  oo  ** 


g O 

*8 

© Qj 

© {7 
Ph® 


|| 

© a 

© © 


C~  M HH  CM 


'd'O-P 

a a a 
p 3 a 

o o o 

p.p«p< 

© a a 

© © ©-M 

88  8 B O 

isls 

© © © p< 


■e-g 
p 2 
'f  o 
8* 

® a 

p-e 
© a 
© © 
_ © 


rJ  . . n 

o«o 


© © © +i 

p<2  ft£ 

-fj  W-© 

fl-gflw 

© a © © 

© © © a, 

O °H8IO 
.HinCM'* 


® o mm 

o in  co  t* 

©5  in  CO  CO 


ss§ 


33S3S 

CM  CO  rH  in 

33  S 


—I  CO  CM 
in  co  ^ o 
m r-i  in  os 


o co  «H 


MHH( 
00  Tj<  i 


: -M 

© o'*-1 

rd  H 

■ ■ ‘ i! 


X © 

tia 

a'P 

Ig  - 

*i'S 

'O 


r©  • • 

2 o o 
Has -a 
o • • 

Pi 


© 5 
J§ 


Jl^ia 
si  83 


Os'S  « 


in  o 

-H  CO 

l>  o 


© CO 

'3’S 

as  9 

CO  g 

p 2 
as  ft 


a 

. _ >lTS 

® 5 ©2  © 
p3p|.* 


MOO 
o'P'P 
as  ■ • 


M ■ .en 
2 00  © 
-O  © rt 

jaZsx 
®xH?” 
>x 


■g  Pm  2 
© a -as 
p-*3 
o ^2  g 
= 23§ 

© o © p 

.3  a si; 

^■§a§ 

© mp.2 

p,-9  fac' 
« a 


I « c3 


©jll 
•a  g g 1 a 
•g  a s Sfi 
asa.gs 

=«  as  £ © o 

§®a2  £» 

r£.§:ggS 

©-p£HO>>9 

aH 

n 

£ 


1 
as 
© 

-©  -©  © -©  +j  -©> 

a a ©.a  a a 

q^  <D  © © © 

O d jg  O O O 

U U a u u u 

D 0>  O ® © © 

p^p-o  P^PhP, 
OOlOiOOO 


H-  +3 

p p 


CO  CO  CO  <M  o 

waowo 

t>.lO  H iC  t> 


LO  ic  H M to  O) 


<©  o 
efrf 


1 O <M  (M  lO 


g l>  O CO 


ONOOrJ'^O) 
-ti^r^C5iO(N 
00  CO  rH  t>  CO 

co~i>  eo* r-T tcTco' 
r-  ^ cj  to  C5  oo 

CO  rH  00  wo  CO 


lO  t—  CO  CO 
i^^oco 
COHNO) 


CO  CO  o 
O 00  o 

<M~CfrH 


p © 

LSM 


-H  p 


co  t> 
m o> 
m <?* 


'P  • 
P^ 


BP’S  © 

:l  1 

®'«  p 

-2's  2 


•11 
« -d  © 
gg£ 

gSs 

ft 


a 


e« 

© 

Pi 

..  P-c 

„ © » ® 3 ® 

__  ©O  P in  rc  M 

^ ^,2  °ar1  2 © © o--  m 
aoWWasH  ©pqoi^f^OPH 
■p  sf 

p .© 

< > 


es  a -a 

■ rH  © 

r a 

© C3 
rr.  ® ft 

©aa  © 


a 

fee 

.a  I a 

.2  [as 

ft©  a 
3 a « 

GTS  a 

"go© 
-co© 
® ftp  « 
5 -©>CQC3 

13 

I 


CliASS  A,— ARTICLES  OF  FOOD  AND  FIVE  ANIMALS  (TO  BE  FREE)-Continued. 


552 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


•ga^Ki  punod 
-moo  put?  opioads  jo 
^ua[BA[tiba  m'ajox'BApY 


£ 

§ © © 

© « » © 

© ® "§ 
P.P.® 
®»o  w 

i-l  CM  rH 


a rt 
© © 
3 O © « 
-■"3  u U 

5 © © 

5 • 

J . o o 

CM  i-l 


0 S 

H 


© © © 

P<P  P 


■€&  «•€©•€©- 


fH  © G 
cs  © a; 
,©  P<© 

t.  *2  f- 


^ W w 

Pi  p,  © p P 


eS  © 
"©‘-g 


& 


*d 

G . 
o t* 

m 

is 

s <© 

a 


co  t*  m h 

CC  h*  (M  t> 
O CM  00  Cl 


NCJCO  00  I> 


CO  O CO  < 
r-t  O 00 

O t>  l> 

TjT  co*  cf 


rt<COOC5  rH  CO  CO  CO 
oowot*  OOOWH 
lO  lO  CM  CO  r-<  rH  t> 


rH  CO  00 


O CO 
O t'- 
O CM 
CM  rH 


P"d 

o ‘ 
ft 


§-s 


Hi 

« O 03  *©  g 
oTP-  rt  © 


© g 


© © 
P«M 

I** 


© 2 & • go 

a ISISs  p«  ®s= 
O PhPH  jjMoSS 
3 


<3  -2 

w 


S| 

© 'O 

o3 

Cm 

© £ a 

;kW^ 


idstuffa 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


553 


O l>  H t>  (M  O 
tH  <0  00  C-  CO  05 

diodnod 


• . vy 

' ^ *9  »9 

, 3 ai  cn 

• 9 3 0 

‘ 2,©,© 


' CJ  • * , vy  w 

ggft  ; igftftg 
© © i§  o o ft.g  £ © 
s-lsjQ'd'o+=>aa^ 


© p| 

a© 


a © 
8* 


CQ  d <M  <M 


COlOOOO' 


i co  05  oo  r>  o oo  < 

)(NCOt>nt^CO^( 


)OCOOOHOI>< 


lO  Hl> 


(M  O 00  CO  CO 


oo  oo  oo  • • oo  co  • co 
©'§  © O d'2'®  o'® 

'S  g-S'^'*  a-S'?  u 


a © s 

,Q  ftps 


sS 

O p, 

<a  o 


‘"n- 1 33  03  ©~h 
rrj  5 ®#os 
1 *!  3 .*  H n m 

a ,2  £ £ a 3 

!^.2  a 


© © 


O'© 


33  eS 
» © 

-OrO 


MWpqw^oootS5^^ 


~ a 

© .3 


S a 

ft-® 

of  ef 
o o 
« « 
o o 
OO 


rrt  » Hit] 

a ia  2 a 

a ao  a 

° a m ° 

ft  -8  ft 


o5a 
28 
a ® 
© * 
S'® 
© © 
13  © 

a 3 

a © 

13  ,£5 

F 

C3 

00  ® 

8-2 


N U 

• jH  O 

^13 


■gl© 

?*a 


©03  CO  L- 
U*3  00  ION 


r}  13 

a a 

o o 


a a 

© © 
© © 


•2  g bc^'S  g 8 

© o-2^  ©a  8 
9qao  ftr-  a 
h.oflnfl® 
© © © .9  u a p| 

if  2 fti3.S 


13  ■ 

B ® 

r-<  ^ 


I8J€l.§! 

H O K w 

o ® > fl 

oo  © © „ © © 

Ss  *£*©13'? 

NgU  8| 

.S  9 ^ a © « © 

C 3 p Naa 

irljl*.®-* 

“jOi©  2 ®.9  a . 

© © © © a © 

^ O ©,"■  " ■■  ■“ 


Is  05 ' 

-a 


O no 

2 ’o  . 


§1 

?s. 

ft  ^ 

© 

OO  Q. 

03  l-^1 

© 03 


13 13 
a a 
a a 
© o 


ftft  ftft 


a a 

© © 
© © 
o 


oo  ih  •<*  ia 

03  (M  00  CO 

t-  CO  CO  CO 


— < V-  CO  rH 


i3 
ora 
5 a 

2 a 
ft  o 


a.« 

_S  rO 


f-vg'S 

..g<(S3 

J«M  £>  03  0> 

a o pQ  o ^ 

©niS  © § 

8-g.gl.g  SS,S2 

a^ljf  foil's 

,3!^iiwi  r8^ 


- bC  P c3 


i +3  p © © 

^ J” ®'g'i,3 

•«S©ft'a3a2ra©ac3a[^ 

^“a§©|t>t>£ 


r a 8 ° ® 2 ® © 2 fe 

•|  a a fcj'S  .9^0.9 -E 

^ a° 


CJLASS  B.— ARTICLES  IN  A CRUDE  CONDITION  (TO  BE  FREE)— Continued. 


554 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


piraod 

•moo  p xe  opioods  jo 
^aoiBAinbo  tuoaopsA  py 


0^  us  in 


ohn  o 


© © 
PhP< 

05  05 

p p 
© © 
© © 


O O 

P-a 

f-i  u 
© © 
ftp. 


a a a 

H & 

© p © 

P.®  pH 

_®  ^ _® 
p-2  "a 
© p © 

© © © 

HhU  lO 
C-4  lO  .-! 


a o a o 
® ® ©.g 


g.« 


p eJ 
® © 
P t» 


©33 

3 


CO  lO  1-1 


Oint'Q 


03  O CO  00 


O lO  C3  O 


a'p  *> 
.2  © 3 

* 2 P 
3 3 


P ® 

’,3 


*5.5:3 .2 


£«f 

ca'B 


3 


® pj 
05  ^ 
© © 


43© 

p GO 

© u 
© © 
o t» 

CO  O 

MbC 
■§•§ 

_ « « 

B 2 C ® * 
© P t,  © © 
tc'S  ^ p 

- a to  I <2  -® 

& o p^.  © © 
©O-B  OP5.® 
$ I P3  O — — 
£<  J.  O £ © © 

© 2 .©«  S 

sfSI^ 

= '3°1 

u 3 ® 

^l| 

-p  a° 

■r3 

of-3 

5 


*4 

pa  t> 

P 3 

5 I 

® | 

% O 


« a 

3 o P 
H-«©  I 

2j§  s A 
2S-1 
I p g a 

ojp  p g 
p's  ®aa 

© 0,3  — 

l.g£s 

^ * § © 

-bcg-B 

kpgo 

os  — pa  _ 

2|s1-b 

.2  p S m 2 

"So 
pa  -, 

pj  ® - 

— p. 

» § « - 
■p  ^b'2  B 
^b£§^®_ 
: SrsHs  p P 


MO'S  S3 

0 f £ £ 

® pg  >5 

® >jo  fan 

!“£©- 
3 © a © 

50  p»  — © 
-g  © £ 

?sg£ 

sl-S-g 

■§§.35 


05  . 3 
-3  • P 
3 ® 3 
©3  o 
P. 


| cf  § g 

;J»i 


I > 3 
°3-s 


SB 

« o 


s©g 


*2  Ops'?  a SO 
a ° WB  e - 

3 P p—  © © 

? feCdBO  > 

© gM  « co  o 

©Q  o g § § 
£ 

05 .2  S 3 b» 
®P3  | P^^ 

00  > CJ 

o 


«3 

,r"3 
* S ®2 
§|®p 

« a 

ilia 

©5  ® a 


3 

a—  " 
§1 2 
^O'S 
X© 
2 cT-3 

S *2 

© ® 5 


2 M, 


3 &' 


II 


P’S 
3 ° I 

il? 


©3 

b£ 


H 


>3  o ® a a g e. 


|I 

*8i 

P<a  c! 

a gs 

pa  a 

xt3 

| 

N 


5-3  ® 2* 

© 40  i5  a 
« o o © 

w&na 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


555 


«H  Ot>  rH  © -*  O 00 

© CO  CO  © © cm  <o 


<OOCM  © © © b- 
^TOOOi  rH  CM  CO  rH 

rH  CO  CO 

HlNH  rH  rH  CM  CM  CM 


S3 

©>cm 


t>r 


P 0'S  J A 

° o g g ° 

£ £ p 
© © fa  fa  © 
pp®  © ft 

»hi  P P.  r\ 


a p 
© © 
© © 


S : 

« o 

fa>d 


-*a«g  +3 
©7*  © 

<2£<S 

S8S 

SoS 

P.S  p 

HHN 

<&&■<& 


xi  is 

w|So| 

• © © 

;©  0< 

CM  CO 


» i > 

•2  © 

• ^ 0t 

ss® 

6- 

©O  © 

PlO  © 
Who 
•66- <©-i© 


gp.pp.ag 
© _ © _ © © 
©5©2voo 

fa  p — a fa  fa'd 


©0<Q0N 
CO  O hh"  l>  r-T 


50  <M  05  O CO 

05  05  (M  CO  00 

NH  CO  I© 


own  Ni-ieoaod 

■^iH  C<f  of  rH 


-*  CO 
rHOf 


00  -H<  C5  Ifa  © tfi  rH 


rH  rH  © 


00  00  05  IO  © 
CO  © 00  IO  CO 
© 00  ^ © CM 


CO  © l>  © 00  rH 

t>  © lO  © rH 

CM  © © CO 

CM~  r-T  Of 


CM  © rH  < 


© © © ^ © © © 
© CM  © © © © rH 
© © © © rH 

cT  t4  t>T  ©*  cT 

© © © rH  00  00 


© CO 
CM  00 
CO  00 


© rH< 


© ^ © 00  rH 
00  CO  00  r*  © 
r-  CO  H © f 

rf  4 acf rP  © 

b-  CO  rH  00 

© oc 

CO  r4© 


© CM 
© CO  b*» 
© t>  © 


^ CO  © 00  00  © b~  CM 

H*?OiO00t>  CM  CO  rH 
© CM  b- 


I'd  ^ ; 
_©  ® P c> 
'd  g ©'d 


© 

te'd'd 

3S| 

0 p 

3 9 ft 

® J ° 

tf  ^ c 


83 

p-d 


<Sr§£ 


;f 

© © 
42  P3 
CP- 


fa  a 

P § rtf 

3 -_2 

"Is? 

pH  « > 

tf  ’l.  fa  © 

J 3 Mg, 


: 3 3^.2  ° 


o o 

1^3  rtf 


o 

Is 

I s 

i <S 

©42 

0’S 

r2  ® 

rtf  Of 

£ 8 


5 Si  | 

§ SI 

^ rP®^ 

p3 


© • • • • • • © M 

£0  o o o a°t£© 

^'d'ond'd  5 


© ® s 

'OlHrP 

■eg « a 

© o P 


o 

Sap 


> o 
§ 2 
2 fc* 

Mrtf 


w'g  ® 

lilt 

© o 0+3 
_ . P 
1 rg  rtf  O-tP-'P  P 

® © p p 3 


'gO.Srtf-^^.S'tf-tf®'^ 

d t>  fH  in  (1)  n n n ^ 


0 

e8  £ 

r.  © 


£|3 

©rtf  g 

fa  P_ 

.©  «s^ 


• r-H  rtf 

_ * - . q®©S.p 

Cp  43  rP  ^d  CO  43  rP  © *> 

*.  42  .a  ® S..3.8  © O 

oflpjopoa^ 

rtf  =a  43  Cp  O-PP 

-'(.(..soppaa 

OO^POOOO 

rH  rH  H ^ r*T  r^  irH  r-H 


rtfrtf  03  42  rtf  rtf  rtf  rtf 

. <r>  an  . ^ © © © © 


4a  § p®  ® u p®  ® ® ® | 

Prtf*sPP®*aPPPP  I 

«3ocjat4oSSl3,15 

p®^S5 o^SS5S| 


i 

n 

rtf  O 

S © 

P | 

bfi® 


2 a 
° & 


© » 


H 6 O 
«fl  Poe 
i_,  .„4a 

° ® 8 
M ©rg 
P ©r3 
•g43  © 

i 

PfaZl 


: p 

I'd 

• p 

I <3 

= |l 

il^ 


5*H  O. 

o 5* 

+p  © 


3 * 

o a 


©*fa  3 

a'  pu-3 


1 1 1 


S S 5 g.|  | 


© ° 2 •• 

5 » §1^355 S« 


o£a 

© 

ll|« 

Ssl-p1 

o-a  p,r,; 
rt'JW  ■ 


Srtf'S^ 

8ii2 
5 fl  a i? 


I g-o 


CIjASS  B. — ARTICLES  IN  A CRUDE  CONDITION  (TO  BE  FREE) -Continued. 


556 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


'89^'BJ  pnnod 
•moo  pue  opioads  jo 
SnorBAiubo  mejoiBA  py 


Ah  w oo 


lOiai o 
i Ol  X t> 


Ift  00 
c-i  4ji 
<M  CO 


1ft 

ci 

- <M 


P1-1 
0)  u 
Pi© 

rr> 


. © . © . 

•-a  •r2'Sr3 

•03  • 0 03  a 

: S : p p § 

If  I OrQ  § 

•g  ®-g  ?©  p* 
® Pig  © Pig 

© ® © Pi  ® Pi 
© a u +=  a +3 
© © © Pl  © 0 
Pi©  Pi©  « © 
o o o u o 53 

<M  Ift  <M 


P 0 

BB 

© © ^- 

Pip  a 


p a 
© © 
© © 


o © 

« o o 

© ©rP'w 
© © 

Pi  Pi 


p d-d 
© © © 
« © © 
u u u 
© © © 
Pi  Pi  Pi 
1ft  1ft  o 

<N  r-l  <M 


PlP  P 
|T©  © 
_g  © © 


1.2 

hS 


co  ift 

53 

r-i  eo" 
(M  -*l 

eo  i-i 


W> 

P 

*2 

3 

•d 

Js 

P.S 

a h 


o in 


< in  m oo 


comm 

rf  TjuO 
l>  tXM 

hoV 


O OO^OOCO 
O rH  in  CO 
O rH  CQ  <D 

i>  c4*  »h 


> CO  CO  «H<  O 00 


t>  O CO  CO  o 
CO  CO  C-  CO 
oj  co  t-H  m co 

3 g «*£ 


c-  o < 
of -ft 

Cl  4* 


O t> 

© Ift 

oTco 

Ift  1-1 

c-co 

13 


moon 
c:  r*  co 
OHO 

ocT  oTc^f 


rH  in 
fr-  O 

afsf 


© ■ 
•d  • 
p ® 

:JS 
. © 

• ^a 

• © 

i'g’I'S 

:§-Sf 

Pi  I 

!1 

: *§  » 

I •§•§ 


P 03  4i 
1 'P  Pi  ■ »-3 


© - 
d s 

O Oi 
PI  f- 

•73  o 


W 1 rt 

© 3 

03  © 

a -p 


as 

-g§ 

'S'S 


m 


hs  © m 

BBS 

& co 

373 

d-e 

O N 

I 

I 


teg 
a » 

00 

rz  h 

: 2|© 

Jill 

..  U 03  0 <-* 

•0  g'd  P O 
© p,  P c3  ■*£ 

(-  ST«  0 d 

a ® o h-h 
4->  U - P fcj) 

p.S 
pf'g  ® g 

e3  d 

9 


3 


,P  S'P  ej 

■•'g  § © © g'O 

;r|HI  z&s 

^dc8c3®.Hcd  O 

SMOtfW^Pi  "flSO 

§ 

2 O 


§aril 

- - >3  - O 

dpu  p d**-1 

.O  Oo  - 

© o -£T..P 
Pp  “ d Sf 

c-eflS 

3?p."HP 


2 «e§V 
poop 
' P H o 

O ©43  tx 

sl« 

I is 


© G3  _ 

235 


P.O 

1 5 "u'H 
® © 1 p.2 

Sopidp  . 

P'gO  Brl  2’®  S 

©|ll||l|| 

qs-SHPAEfc  O'H 

■62 

CAS 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


557 


CLASS  C.— ARTICLES  WHOLLY  OR  PARTIALLY  MAIVEFACTCRED  FOR  USE  AS  MATERIALS  IN  THE  MANUFACTUR- 

INCr  AND  MECHANIC  ARTS  (DUTIABLE). 


558  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

S t>  c$ 


>S9^1tt  punod 
•moa  pn*  ogioads  jo 
laaptAinba  oi'ojoiba  p y- 


*8 


53  3 

n 


|8 

8| 

iS 


s 1 

ft  a 
>3 
0 
0 


•O 

a 
0 

o o 
ft  ft 


p ft  do  a a p _ 

© q p S 83  8 ^ 

ft  P<  P <-w  ft  ft 
ia  u # -« 

'■T  <M  iM  co 


"3 

a 

3 

O 

ft 

u 

0 © 
§ P« 

Zi 2 

© a 

ft  © 


•a  8 

"o'-S 


& 


d 

'a 

a 

Is 

P,00 

at 
is 
0 ^ 


o ® 


o o 

CO  TJ1 
CD  00 
COG 


O CD 

cSg 


8 2 £ 


00  CD 

cT^ 

eoS! 


£ a:  a'  h 

d a-fifi 
© ®-d  2 

«S  :^i 

o rt 


fi 

° a 

'3M-' 


Is  -S 

§*  s fa 
1*2  2® 
0 X'~,® 

= S’©*© 

5 00^5  CP 
*Ch"©  fl 


ij 

«-§B 


at 

c a 

o rt 


P 


O ® o r ® 

gllS-T 

i&g|a 

i* 

pa  — 

2| 

© a 


a a 
a 3 

©P3 

CO 

m 

<D 

a 

« 

«m  o : • 
: 

>5^ 

a a a : 

ft?  © 
2 8 

f-< 

O 

fl 

.2 

aa 

S « a « 
fi5  g*§. 

© -g 
&§ 
5 4^  OD 

© 

rg 

Kr  r 

© 

_a 

rH  © 

e-  t 

©i’S® 
^5-2  8 
: © 0 - 

-a0! 

O nW  O 


^3 

a 


w oq  a © © ® 

o a a ft' o 
PQ  M 


fi  2 pips  a 
r g^ljpa  a,- 

g a a a-© 3 

® S-l 

;||i 

I lien'll 

§ « 8fi  2 2® 

ft§^  8s 

W 5 <1 


o © 

a BMj  l 
a 

C 
H 


£ a 

sa 


a£ 

i| 

ra-a 

2 © S 
8 St 

© o 
d§« 
© 2 a 
=5fta 


IIS 

- © a 

qO© 
© © © 

“fit 

© o a 
"£>3 
a a © 
© o a 

-a 

«2t> 

S- 


•3  oo^r 

a a © 

a Is 

£ © « 
Bo  »_ 

a j ° 

afi  cl 

8 -a  .§ 

H-'d'a 

Aa3  © 
£ © ft 
B>3  P3 
c3  _ © 

rB  CB^- 

© -©  cS 
© © 
rM  C 3 

o ftS 

III 

S“S 

afi 

2 a 

0 

1 §f 


© ©fi 

® s © 

tc.2  » 
a *-  o 

..  © a_ 


t>  {> 


I 


.2  S i 

o ,© 

•i-S  ® ©H 

« © fee 
© cs  a 

« S’®  na  £ 
a ©-a  a -pa 

iasai 

« ^ 


i i 

© g 

fi  a 

X -a 


<111 

of©  On 

O °T3  | 

u-a  q 
a © § j 
"t  © © i 
© ft  ft ; 

3 a a i 
a © < 
*"_-©- 
pfi-o<  < 
o ©+3- 

©=  a « 


d”2  2 
d 5 .a 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


559 


T5S82 

c?smoi 


S 3 

fa  fP 


s s g s 

to  ci  o'  o 


'C'd 
P P 
P P 
o o 
aa 

S © 

aa 

as  as 
-fa  +s 
P P 


-.'p'p 
'p  o a 
3 p p 
Poo 
2 ftft 

ftfa  fa 


fa  +3  a a 
© P © © 

a©  © © 


; ■'d'P 

:1§3 

• goo 

; © a a 

• wfa  © 

•fa  fa  © © 

g ® 

© 

fa  fa  p a ‘ 
© p © © 
a © © © 

m W eWH* 

moioioo 


■ •d*d 
! P P 
^22 
p 
p 


o o 
aa 


|7aa 

© CD  to 

£p3 

fa  © © 

g w © 


; ■ •d'd 
'O  P P 

• P P P 

• Poo 


fafa  p p 

as  s s 

to  °(W^i 
■<*  d CM  CO 


5 fa  • 

*g8.f 

fa  p © 

p p © © 

s»5; 

© g « a 

aa^P, 

to  fa* 

T*  co 


© © 
^a 


fa  r-t  fa  fa  CO 


In  Si  o 

T-^00  ^ ^ oo  <M 

COO  C5 

6, 487 
55 

rH  O 

l>  o 

§ ^2 

CO  CO  OS  rH 
*H  Of 

rt<  05  O^M 

rH  rH  TjT 

l>  ^ 

rH  <D 

^ ^ <M 

of  of 

O <M 

NC5LO©  faOO< 

O to  OS  CO  O fa  I 

OClOt"  CO  OS  I 


Ifa  ON 


o co  co 
t~  oi  o •** 
MOON 

fa'eo  to 


WCDOOH  O) 
l>  40  <H»  CO  l>» 

co  c©  oi  t> 

CCifiZOCi  CO 
^eoo  co  r-» 
IO  II  CO  iO 


Irf  OCO 

roiff^T 


O CO  00  IO^ICJi 
rH  CO 


£ 3 

OS  L" 

00  o 
fa  o 

01  CM 

tjT  tn" 


• • Td  • ■ • ; 

: :p  £ : : : 

o o « p o o o 
rorP  as  HrP'drP 

• -rS  o 
. - a 

A 


P3 


■'d 

p*  a 
a p 

P o 

a** 

a^ 


: p 

5 es  cs  a a a 

lfafag« g 

. o o p.^  a 

o © 

0J  © 
rl  © 

si& 

5c© 
'd 


> 
o 

5^0  i s 

O P a i « _ 

H S'g'i  2 « a © 

'd  p<a  2 ar-r^j  © 
fl  © - _f  5 a a 

^O^COq^^CT? 

®as®s® 

• a ® 2 © 2 p , — 

© p a<®  © ©•© 

© §•©  £=s  © ©o  .2 

fa  © ® ®3 

©Ofa  ©fa  © © © © - 

B>  © £ fc  £ fc«fa 

©©SJ-©2©00P_ 
pa  © Ofa  ©po^.o.P'd 
03  o 5^  £ 

■d  cd  bt  -d  -d 'd  bt u 

«4)0©®4)«)®Ot3 

e d © .,5  j=  d p © P 

,!>!>■§ 

bt-r  “ 17 


g © © ® ® 2 
*a®  ©J  © 0®oo 
^2  P"°  a^  prP,PrP 

^ gp.g  Jsps  © : : 
p 2 a ~ p>  p ^ - 

g as  _r  o 32  © 

©rd  o 0rd 
fa  ©.a  as  a & 

© &fa3  68  © 
fa  P o © © © 

•cl  © a §* 

* ^3  a -43  g 
® p aJS 
fa  bf^fa 

d ® © ° 

•fa  © P — i ©■  fa 
c«  fa  o © © o 
pa  2fa  ©'P  P 


.E'd' 


! ®.2'd«  be 

L--a  © ..a 

llll-il 

i ©rt-® -2" 

1 a2  ©- © 

• ° © © 
i tn  S+i 
- r—  g to 


H 

fa  o 

© pj 


c©  • • 

a o o 
ppp 


g'd 
© 9 


'^=23 

«lii 


'S.2sb|  ^aa 


_ fd 
cc  •—  ® o 

© P > P 


■Pc©  fa  © 

§§§?• 

5 


• 'd 
rp  a 

P 3 

P o 

2 a 
^ © 
fa  © 

2 a 

If 

1! 


®^S-S!,s 

tt-fa  © a cs  a 


®-d^  a 

;,ra  a 


Sea 
^ o 
A ' 


•sis 

a 


p a _ 
c ^ o 
^ ® v 


^ Ol>  o 

4^.  ^ .Q 


^ bfj^  S?,'-  C3  c3  C3  cs 

o ^ - J 


LJ  rrt  ^ 'w  *w 'd  *d 

ftp  e«s  § § § § 


.2  ©S  o'cS'd’P 

ft 


M 

la 

•2  L 

21 

.2  a 

2 a 

ad 


. o 

'S 


pa  © © 

Ottfl 

p P a 


oo  bt^ 

miiim 

'•2  *2.  © ® ^'d'P  © 

»,Or®  H fl  n C o 
©rt  Sfen  2 ® ® * 
-P  -•  ® ^ 0 2 ® ©-2 
fa  ® o o as  a+s  p 
O^rHCM  a<S  P P g 

c.  . . T*  © © o 

o a o o^3  © © ©<_ 

i§H®faieS^ 

-p)fafarpp®acs 

'P  ^ © © Pr©f^r^-© 

§2  p p « © © © « 

9 S'0 ,3,3 ,35 
,o33  © 3 3 p 3 
a^HH  a^t>t>>> 


So 

as 


—S  © P 

■P 


® ftp* 


"pa  © 
fafa  © 

o OtH 

ggU 

fa  On3 
fa  © 

fa^  a 


w 


w 


B-9 


rrj  • 

©5 

(-  'p 
. «8  0 
© P 
P3  O 

®_a 

! 

a 

© 

9 


I aga 

I.  fa  bc2: 
© © p o 
<^rC.S  « 

as-®^  a' 
S fa  © O 


-•p  S © 
® o ®pa 
•gW  w 


140, 227 


CLASS  C. — ARTICLES  WHOLLY  OB  PARTIALLY  MANUFACTURER  FOR  USE  AS  MATERIALS  IN  THE  MANUFACTUR 

INR  AND  MECHANIC  ARTS  (DUTIABLE)— Continued. 


560 


EEPOET  OF  THE  SECEETAEY  OF  THE  TEEASUEY. 


*69^131  pnnod 
-ai09  pan  oppads  jo 
quapjAinba  raaioiHA  py 


. o 

JCO 

■ o 
<co 

37.53 

38.  66 

41. 89 
38.48 

59.54 
50.  75 
41.13 
43.  00 

; 

: : ; 

pj 

-p 

^ 5 

'P'P'P  © 

fp 

p 

p 

P 

o 

p 

p 

o 

O-P 

P P P <3 
P P P_^ 
o o o*P 

g 

ft 

ft 

ftp 

ftft  ft  p 

ft 

£ 

© 

© g . 

© 043 

© © © o +3 

© 

© 

ft 

ft 

ftftftftg 

ft 

-2 

a 

42  S o 

® ® 03  ^ n 
4--P4J  O 

1 

p 

© 

© 

o 

© 

© 

g ftg 

° p 

© © © _ © 

© © ©P  ft 

o 

«is 

$ 

*M 

CO 

ToV 

It  .'» 

Toff 

cei 

30 

t-Th^ 

mHNcW 

; ; P 

« £ 

§ :!• 
© g 
u : £* 

.£  oZ  a 
P'3  p © 
© © 


• n 

; a 

. P 
. o 
: & 
-(j  © 

R © 
© ft 


h| 


53 

■p 

(=1  . 
o 

+3  oo 

P4® 

a* 

5 >> 


•"*  t-  CO 

ca  n 


<3>  O r-i  ( 
CO  Tt< 

00  CO  05 


00  rH 
»A  CO  05 
O E-00 

ri  <m~ 


«o  -r  o 

t-  Ift  CM 

mT  wo' 

05  «D  CO 


icToT* 


g3  2| 

-J.2-©  o 

•go®  Oja  _ m . 

§c?®'g'S  k-p^ 

|IJ«°  §|§ 

I p § p 

S3  «o  _ 2 e3  I -p  S/p 

o £ u 03  r3  ^r3 
O^go  S-gH  H 
4s  a grp  © 

73  G 

rri  <dC/2 


i— J © rrt  (-1 

a © a 41 

9 a 2 a 

o.2  o.2 
PvP  (ftp 
H H 


gtg  «r 

£-t4  W) 

ok  P 

ar  <s 

•S3  “ 

•§§1? 

L ^ K _ 

I Z Is. 

1113 

© P js  p 

*■ «<H-S 

t. i|s 

sx-*®  a 

I 2 >»g 

g'Sjes^ 
g bo©  O 

IM9 

®«a  j 

Ills 

ills 

ii== 

o « ^ es 
W _ ©.P 

5 ©*2^ 

p ^ 2 t-i ' 

^*p 

<->  ft©  3 

o A 0-9 

sjgfi 

S 3-2^ 

^ rt  N 

M 


P®  o 
rj-po- 

o : 

ft© 

g’i 
« m 
bC® 

©.9 

15 

miM 

CT.  6 

II 


® a 

a .9  « 

25  a» 

fl& 

p”  © 

!§■? 


<500 

p 3 9 


■aunt* 
a © © © 
9 P P P 
5 2 o 2 
p*222 
HHH 


1 p1©  E pc’s 

! 3 ©-9  O © © 


o'©  £ 

^ Q 

M'S 

© 

*o 


5mm 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


561 


C5  00 
O *H 

© 

CO  CO 


cooic 

I o TJ1  Tf 

!^oid 


50  05 

oo 


'dnd 

a a 

53  0 
O o 
ftp- 


P P 

05  © 

« 9 
wWhM* 
CM  CO 


r3  rg 

P P 
P P 


P.O 


05  05 
® V ® C5 

§§S§ 


&d 

05 
00  05 


*°!h  ^ 


° • 5 
P.'S  ft 


j) 

Q.  fl  © 3 o 
Or*  v' 


P. 

-©  O 
d'd 


n _ 

q'w 

p 2 p 9 
O P O p 

P.  2 P.® 

© ft©  ft 

05  S-<  05  P 

Q.  05  p,  05 

w ft  tc  ft 

-©  m -©  05 

p +2  n -£ 

u $ u 01 

H!C!  w hiw  ° 

.P  CM  CM  CO 


' T3_rP 

"2  flr2  p 

S p p p 
o p,o  o, 

ft©  ft© 
© © © © 
© ft©  0, 

P.  * Ph  ^ 


Ta-g 

§1 

ftg, 

05  6-j 
* 
+■>  CO 

© S 
© © 


Ot»  CM  CM  CO  CO 


rS  • - 

P'S  P'S 

p P e P 
o P o P 
p,o  0,0 

©ft©  ft 
© © © © 


p ts  p *2 

05  P 05  P 
O 05  O 05 
, O „mO 


0 S 
° 5 
*g, 

0J  fr4 

P<g 

CO  ^ 
CO 

p ts 

05  9 
05 


CM  00  CO  t> 


CO  © O 05  O 05 

cT  c<f  i>  co*  i-T 

OH  CM  rH 

in  co 


iCCi--H 

L-OQt> 


-IC5»hN 

5rfLOCO 

5 C5  CO  CM 


cm" 


>3  I 

p 5F 

P P 


5g  £ 


S5 

-so 
« f? 
© P 
© o 
2-P 

I O 


<3  P - 


«?3a 

np  ® U.j~ 

P P,—  rP 


h'Ji  § 

a P - 


! cc'o  o ©• 


o 


Poi  : o 


> | 0.2  5 ©r£  ©^ 

OO  _ 05  w ^ ■ 

<o  Ppj  a a 
c3  ej  pP;  o p 


©o^ 

r5,5  O 

5 p J2  >PJ 

K p-  © rt'cc 


P'P-P 

a ©H 


ill 

o a o 
P._9  P, 


n p- 

H 


'S'g 

® P 
®2e 
©^ 


o ® ■ 

« pi 
1 1 g* 

Opj  O- 
O * 


'C  g 

9? 


n r-4 

P S 

e3  > 
- © 
C b£ 

hi 

tf  £ 
© .d 
© ? 
®U0 
-tT  6 


t>  Si 


: : : : p 

: : : : Es 

O O o o o 
'C-SP-S  O 

p 

o 

3 
3 

o 


©„fcOOC 
bps  o 


«S.  fcJbfcr 


fSV 


6 6 


0 d 

d e3  S 
PPJ  JP 


dP 

P’P 


o o o o 

rdro-o!rd 


.5  ^ 
* ® 
P3  ” 
d o 

* fc 

d-  d 


p i 

S 


MS 
9 tlj 


. o 


jd 


d - 
aS^S 

rP 


P3  rt  c3 
P d P © w 

a a I 

®4J+a  5 
o o 3,  o 
O d p ^ • 

d__  ©rM 


© d p a ® 

sx  . s a a fee 

si 

d* 


; st 


^o'ccT  50  g 
lOMHClS 

odd  d"o 

« 

d d d d-3 

C5S  rt  cS  es-H 

I £ 


\siss; 
“§§►§!§«- 
fe  65  « o d 

8§!^9|1 

©"PC  £ ®SJPP 


25§| 

gf/MOQ 


p a a a a o 

©mccccccO 


1 05  S O 05 

:fcS,c:'c3 

j h b a d s s a 

jCOCO  PcQCCMCQ 


.p  '3  'S  *0  33 '« 'n  'S 

gaag 


• ■ • • d 

■ ^ ^ 

O c O O O 

pj  g’p’p  p 
5 
P. 


^ d ^ 


C5  q 

^fetsio 
9 P p 
a,«i« 
fcesc&c 

£ £ £ 


d P P 

III 

g|® 


-d  • 

p5 


>»  ^ 
d 

o o 

a & 


IlSpJ 


Mo 


Kj  O Pi  0s*  ^ £ 0 
*11^ 
il!!!li| 

g © 9'nr,p.2 « 

«ssca 


^ § 

Jills 

"o  ° 2 bC°_l  ^ 
o p 0 ©^1^  . 
-d'S'S-P^  p,° 
| § 9 * *-*rfc 

n'O  ® § o | 


© © © © 
bt^o  bfi^© 

cs'd  P'S 

fee  a fc£  a 

m co 


S.  Ex.  72 36 


CLASS  C.— ARTICLES  WHOLLY  OR  PARTIALLY  MANUFACTURED  FOR  USE  AS  MATERIALS  IN  THE  MANUFACTUR- 
ING- AND  MECHANIC  ARTS  (DUTIAR  LE) — Continued. 


562 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


pnnod 

-moo  pun  opioods  jo 
^aoi'BAinfro  umaopsA  pv 


— - m — - eo  tccocoto 

CM  CM  t-  00  NiniOf 

O o rH.ci  Mmtto 

■-T  t-  kO  O -k* 


^ P 
9 p 
§& 


"©  © 
go 


•3  ■ 'p 

p 5 p p 

o P o P 

P.O  0,0 
© &©  * 
© © © © 
p.®  P-® 

© o © a 
© © © © 

(M  CO  CO 


©3  ©3 
p g s 2 
O © O P 

p-S  p-S 
© p*© 

© © © © 
ft®p<® 
x ^ 

-+-»  « S-J  Gfl 

P'S  P'S 
<©  P a;  P 
o <d  c © 


p'-'p'o 
p P D P 
OPOS 
o<o  ^2 

^ p- 

© J-  <D  p 

p-2  ^2 

05  ^OD  ^ 
05^  ® 

P'S  P'S 


P-® 

2^ 


H05C0I> 

CsfCQlOC^ 


lONNO 


OO 

rH 


O h*  <M  <M 
CC<Dt^O 
t>  CD  t-O 


NH050 


< CO  CD  rH 

I lO 
CO  <M 


oar>^ 

OO  t*  <M 
H CO  O 00 

of  o 


P bt)  it 

£§£ 
.9  * * 

£«do 

o"1«! 

rH  © O 

£5  P P 
© e3  e3 

S-P-P 


Z*  c3  cS 

p a a (3o 
a ® ® o 


'p  O P'S 

n (S  s l> 


P'O'C'd 
o 
ft 


li 


^ O P 

oS« 
£3$ 
-©  © © 
gj©  jg 


» a a 

a § ® 


a & 

© «9 


.©  O © be 
o P P © 
P i—  © 

'p  2 o'S 

P CS  P * 


loo® 

iOnH^ 

I dodo 

iSSIS 

r©P35-=5 

© *3 

© © © © © 
■©,52.2,2.2 
<£3333 

a a a a 

^CCCCCQ!/! 


6 o ©.© 
POPP 

« 3 2 JS 

•*3  ” ^ 
© © © 


54  l5 
© © © 

03.2  - 

,2 ^3333 

®-s  a a a a 

« ©CCOJCCOJ 

S* 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


563 


<m  r>  oo  o 

05  <N  l>  O 

wodo 

iO  co  ic 


P. 

p"3 


AP< 

© as 

"p  p 
© © 
© © 
lO  t© 


PP 
p g 

o P 
ft® 
u ^ 
© u 

ft© 


a g 
© p 
© © 


•p 

'p  a 

p p 
P o 
® ft 

© © 
© ft 

<=c 

-g  g 
p © 

© © 


PP 
a p 
p p 
© o 
ftft 

f- 1 © 
© © 
ftft 


p p 
© © 
© « 


pp’a'p 
p p p p 
P P o o 
o o ftft 

ftfty  y 

u u © © 
© © ft  ft 
^ © © 
© © g -U 

-g  g p p 
p p © © 
© © y o 
« 


• P 
"P  P 
P p 
P o 
® ft 
fte. 


1§ 

CJ  o 


T-i  <M  ®|H  (N 


CO  <M 

g?2 

o CO 

gi 

rH  Cf 

of  ^ 

rH 

iQ  00 

idr-T 


Tf  00  <M  < 

nd  irTi 


of  of 


CO  CO 

icTcd* 


CD  Q>  O (M  05  O 

OOOt^iO  CO  1-1 

CO  CO  CO  CO  iOt» 

of  tH  Of  CO  cfcO 


CO  ^ 

ofl>f 


I 00  *"* ' 


CO  co 
lO  T* 

efocf 


t*  o 

00  05 
CO  o 


o co 
S oo 


o to  oo  t*  in  to 

ronoiH  f~-  to 

tO  tO  O O 03  rH 

«o  inof  to  oft" 

©100  m rH  cn  tH 

rH  ©I 


0-1-2 
t g 

5&I-S 

© o£° 

-S^  -«•* 

te  -P3  O 
^ © y 
y~S 


-P-hTO-S 
© ©P  e8 
p © T?  p 

•Spa  £ p 

© 

r-  ©^rH 

Isgi 

gss-s 

© •*  <D 

S'gpp' 

P E > g 
P p o-2 

. >■•  ft"o 

*!aUas 

•h  a ® ® 


. g « © r 
a ft3-©  ® 


*g'  ir-p''® 
°og  § g 

S-  ® t4  . * 

£,2  g-3  p- 

0.2  ^2  s 
tSsSS-S 
§<1 
a 

S 


i ® | Sif.' g © ® : 
« s-g  g g § ^-p'® 

££■§  § ft£  p g 
hO^  * <3  S 

?r,‘B'o’o  • ® ®P3 
Wi  r ® .S  , © +s 

P p - © • >rtj  © 

So©  § g, 

R p R P4  • pP  C3 
ft 

fc&o 


gp  © 

g WJ  - • rH  P - 

212  i's'ScS 

oTB  :Sl-2 

© o 2 !p  o 
-*2  : gp  a 
' a 5 o 
' ® 2 
S p • g ©,? 

, » • g ft_ 
5©n  •- 

© 


© s 

© p 


4 -3  3 


a 2®  ■ So®  o 

I i.-^sa 


Nlill 

*^^3  a 3 

,-a  ® » ^ § © 

.a  O ftE:  rfS 

.®o£ci®3  , 

g*CJ  _§  p">.Sf* 

Ms* g g g> 

M P p.S«H  P P 
<1 


I P 


3*1-5 

^ P hi 
o P 


pa 

1 HI  ~ 

..J  eS>9 

130 


oa  * 

*P  2 ©*P 

|H|- 

! ? 


• o'! 

d|  9 


OO 
^ o 

5^ 


© fee 

pg  3 

^ ft© 

_ft  y q 

© ©aP 

*p  -*p 

bs  s 

© p - 
>r2  w 
o ftp 


'3^2.2to  ©_„ 
© ©-O).—  s’® 

ft©  £7  © © 

•p  © ©33  g g 

ft>^3'g  m 

p a rt  OrP  © 

I Pgp£-3° 


t2® 

*P  a 

©5 

tp  © 


§a 

*p  * 

© g 
3*2 
p _ 

p © 

©P! 

ks 


’3  p 


. . _ ft 

3°  2 2 « o 

Cl  c3  eg  w 

•loo 


• • ra  © 

; • yrs 

o 63  S 

'p'p-S  3 


oo  co 

p 'S 
ft  ° p 

S §g’ 
©•P  *• 


rl  - © © 

g © u 
o hj  a 

g c3  hE  O 
rt  y p©n 

&J0.2  ® ® 
B.PP3  - 
© ft.2  ® 

y © O P) 

te  ^ p P 
, o p © 

5 © 

It'^s 

p pj 

b.  g +i  y 

P . s 

«*  > ® bfi 

^51-9 

P ci  .rt  rP 


© 

© © 


© § 

y y 

=«  t>  > 

ft2  2 
‘^P’PS 
^ P P 

£ P P 

p t>t> 

.1 

O* 


-®t3 
& P 

1 ® 
® ft 
'P  tH 
n © 
p ft 
- © 
© 

"p  © 
© © 


o © © o a © 
'P'3'P'P  g-P 


n3  sr.o 


5-9 

ti)p3 

-Sg 

© ® • m rr 

ISfllt 

2 P)  bd  ^ © 

•3  ^ p r\  y 

© ©t3  © 


, I p ^ - 

eft  • G>  © ^ 

*i«1g 
^ii 

® 153  p 


^®  p 

Si& 


b © 


■wl 


P5 

yP 

.2  3- 


Eg 


■PP 


_ p R g © rtg;  m 

P-2  p g 

© yPJ  © y © 

3 * ©o’?  o 9.® 

O O £ eft  rT)  r— T 

U-  £-<  ^ eft"  O ©O 

lllilllll 

1.9  g ©1  fl'S3- 1 
° S-9  y7  ©WO  g 

_r  S © © © W pi 

|hoooh  £ 

I 


£* 

'£  af 

^ S 

|i  g 

fs  ® 

P fH  ft 


CLASS  ('.-ARTICLES  WHOLLY  OR  PARTIALLY  MANUFACTURER  FOR  USE  AS  MATERIALS  IN  THE  MANUFACTUR- 
ING ANR  MECHANIC  ARTS  (RUTIARLE)—  Continued. 


564 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


pnnod 

-moo  pui?  opioads  jo 
inai'BAinba  majo^BA  py 


<*  cd 


os  o i 
cm  P i 

CON' 


P'S 

SO 


-3  -3  -3  33 

p p p a 

DPP9 
o o o o 
pp  pp 

U f*  u u 

© © © O 

PPPP 
oa  a:  co  « 

© as  © as 
© © © © 


^ Oo* 

00  O'  O'  © OQ 

P u 
© © 
P O. 


U aJ 

© u 
p 


'pp;, 

-*2  ® osP-S 
fl-£-£  fl  P 
©OP©© 
© © © © © 
HC«  «00 
N-f  ON-f 


© h 

0.  Q,  © 

o.  ® 
M’+»  © 
-*s  O 

0 © o 

© o © 
©^© 


o' o’ 
© © 

© © 
pp 
© © 

o a 


2 

O'-fi 

-O 


<»■ 


pg 

s£ 

O cs 
© © 

OT3 

^ s 

o w 
<Sca 


CQ  CO 

c32> 


05  CO  <M  t* 
CO  (O  CO 

rHCOlOrS 


eiVT 

05  CO 
&°- 


CO  lO  05  CO 


00  CO 


CO  CO  lO 
t-  Ol  rH 

CO  05  O 


-H  WOO  t> 


HHNCO 
-^HfOOO 
l>  id  05  ^ 


ca  io  t> 
05"  oo  oT  ®" 


oo  t>  ® ® 

05"  05*  CO* 
<M  ® r-l 


05  <M 
05 

T*<  (O 


.*1 

-I?® 

g.2 
3 > 

« © 
>•.© 
o n 


© c3 

37 
> > 


© © 

u u 
3 3 

« O 


A.* 

bC© 

-OP 


g ° 
© © 
O © 


d 3 3 

a a 

cS  o3 

s a 


a ® 
©|  a 


o g 
. ° © 
t?>3  > 

pS  8 


a p 


t>S>S 

,0,0 


33 


. © © © 
:ppp 
, © © « 
. p p o 


r-l  CM  CM 

' WfbfibD 


3 

r. 

8.2  § a - o 

« g p 

tc«r5  g g 


TV©  © © 
W)©  © © 
b.  P © © 

> 3 £ K 

0 o'®  © 

■ 

9 p p p © 
0.3  CJ  c3  © 

1 2 ©"«"© 

a © © p 

© rp,r©  © © 

^ o .2  .S  w 
g 7!  *3  ^ I? 

3-tl-H  CM  p 

as 

gglisS 

a « m © © 2 

K fa"°  £ > 3 
,2  0 33 p3 


(O'©  © © 

43  43 

<0  ® o o o 

-°za*a 

5 ©-3-3-3 

o. s  ggo® 

p,  M c4  c4  d ~ 


.ooa 
© © 
P 3 


CM  CO 
>s>s 
,0  33 

£3 


P rt 
£ 


-T  »-H  ro  71  o 

Sj^S|33 

Mo|oa§ 

S . ,lrt  T«<  o >s 
tt-  Url  CM  CO  33 

£ .3 

©-0,0^3:^ 

rp  goorn  © 

bS-hn > 

a v,  © © © 2 
^ ® > > > a 
^ o — — o P 


— - - _ 

© ,3  P .3 

s|e© 

3!  I P P 


. © O 
33  •T  — 


•SCO 

r*  >5 

CM  -2 


« a®2  > 

||  ill 

«a 

PH 


5 © 

r~s  a x 
© o'© 


I ©^ 
= p a 


2 >^a 
S^p 

P O .3 
P'ttp 


SO^  So® 


Mo® 

©!Z(^ 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


565 


CO  CO  o 
o co  o 

c$  3 


4.4.©,©,©r 

c?  cr  m it  co 

* 00  u u * 

Ci  © * © + 

© © q.o.ftd 

m » g 

03  to  *a  -4  ■£  " 

scsSS® 
®®uooft 
° ° o io  o o 


rl  O 


■d 

a 

3 

© . 
p.-e 


d . 'd  'd  'd  -d 

a a a a a 

c3  ci  c3  c3  c$ 

'd  rs  *d  Td  nd 

a d a a a 

d d d d d 

o . o . o . o . o . 

ft*?  ft-g  d--e  &*?  Or£ 

cdtldtld^dLd 


© 


© 


<M  r-l  i-l 


& 


> 00  © CM  ^ CO 
I CO  CM  CO  O CO 

> CO  © CM  CM  CM 


» CM  -H  TH  cm 


a © o 

cm  ^ ^ I— 

OOO  CO  © 

i-Tr-T  o co 


O CO  CO 
© IQ  GO 
CO  r-i 


COCiWHCO 
CO  CO  T*  CO  CM 
OlOOON 


'IOC5HH 


© o 

A** 
o O 
fl  a 


CM  CM 
fcl  tJD 
.2 .2 
S "3 


§ § § 

S8© 

43  43  .2 
© © _ 
a.©§ 


43 

H«  > 
© © _§ 
>>% 
o o * 
4>4>;d 


* 03  03 
© © © 
4143  43 
O O © 

.2.2.3 

^?oo 


I <N  ( 


blblbD 

•3.2  3 
_ :^s'd^3 
© © © © © 

43  £ © © © 

Sh  «S  « © © 

o d ^ ^ H 

_ 5,  © © © 

ns  ©+3-4^ 

© ® o © o 

£ d pi  d 

> ©'d'd  d 

53  a 3 S 2 » 

CO  *h  C5  Gj  C3  O 3+h 

® **  ^"o  2 

SS  VJ  O © 5/  5 o 

«2®o3 

^O.S  d MO  a 
£s  O T*  © >.'.2 

^ C£*H  CM  CO  ,S  43 


.Safes’3* 

bX)04343  43d!  d 

©ft«M«MP 

cS 

5 


§3 
go 
© © 
•S'd 


M ft 

3s 


<*§ 
41  | 

.8- a 

4)  © 
£ >> 


d 

eS 

9 

o 

d! 

. © 

I s 

®'o 

03  y 

a^r 


I© 

•g  2 


£33 

d > 


d._ 
es 'd 

a® 

u 2 
© 3 

33 

O c3 

a a 

< 


to 

d 043,£J  © 

4S  u ©3  «, 

o o *n  © r 
••  d 5m© 
» _ ©'  od©:  © 

© ©-ScH g 

.as  g g 


>5© 

©Ph 

d 


O 43 
~ o 

•a  « 

"d  ©" 

© g 

a * 

5 © 

© d 

»d3 

d -d 


« 6 
_>  ft 

|1 

si° 


Wd«1 

-2o«v 


-CH 


d©5 

: a-S 
Jss 

■§  > 2. 


*© 
«M  +-> 

©71 


3 © 


o 


I M 

4^ 


«i 

o © 2 
go  co 
r ‘A  © 
rd  © > 


--’3  ”3 

dt>  t> 


p,  ft 


» ® 'd 


s 1 

d -d 

3 « 

I £ 


CLASS  C. — ARTICLES  WHOLLY  OR  PARTIALLY  MANUFACTURED  FOR  USE  AS  MATERIALS  IN  THE  MANUFACTUR- 
ING AND  MECHANIC  ARTS  (DUTIABJLE)-Continued. 


566 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


•69^j  pnnod 
-raoo  put?  oppads  jo 
(^naiBAinba  raaiopjA  pv 


. O Oi  <N  00  rj(  CO 
j IT3  CM  t>  ©5  00  lO 
' O -J  ->*  rji  CO  r-i  H 


p p p p p p P 
floflcnag 
3 9 3 3 0 3 3 
o o o o o o o 
p.  p,  ft  a,  p.  p,  a, 
p p p p p p p 

© © © © © © © P += 

PPPPPPPg  g 
©©©©©©©yg 

SSSooSSoo 

© © © O O U © Pi  Pc 


P P 
© 
p 


.£  .© 
hJ 


© © © o 

p p p p 
© © © 
ppp 


S p 

P c3 

« « 
.©  ® 


irJ'NOOtCOOCC 


lO  rH  C-  O CO  < 

cT  i>T  iff  oo  cd  oo  i 


© © rH  ©©00  00© 

TT  00  rH  © rH  © © rH 

© © t>  cd>cc^oo 

IC  CO*  IO  of  rH  0~  irf  rH 

COt*  © 00  H ^ © 


• h*  tt  CO  © <M 
l © © © CM  © (M 
i ^ © © 00  © rH 


lO  <M  h*  H H © 


^ c_-  ^ 

|l| 

©' © ° 

p.2  a 
g©* 
9 2.2 
> &p 
^©° 
p fcOD  © 
O P P 

® © g 
Wig  , 
a p p 
•Poo 
® 1 . 
p ” © 

2 ©.a 

53  a © 

2 

-££  © 
Mffl 


£ 00000000 
gPPPPPPPP 


a P 


' P P P P f 
| 3 3 3 3 h w 

. s c a p s s 

■ o o o o o o 

; pftftPftft 
, u p P P p P 
•©©©©©© 

; PftftPftft 
• © © © © © ^ 

'a  a p q P bm 

g u s u o o,S 

ftO  O O O o p 

tjc  m to  t>  co  © 

© bfi  M bt  fcX)  tr.  g 

P.9 .2 .9 .3.9  x 

©ppppp  © 

P © © © © © p 

P © © © © « o 

X “p 


no  © © © ©•cp'w 


SJ 

Ih 


f&S 

®4" 

Mi 

S*s  s 
E|§ 

£.p  p 

r-p  © 

ft  OP 

■ rt  ® © 

J,S.§-2 

;h 


- +J  +3  +J  « « M 3 

fcrOoCOOPo 
a 3 9 3 3 3 ® P 
PPPPfl p 
P P P P © © 
w~c3eacso3©P< 
3*00000^ 
Kw-gaoot^oo® 


P 

© ^ 
© C3 


P©©©©©©© 

P o o o o o o O JO 
ts  "c3  Is  "cl  c3  el  g 
PPPPPPPPp 
©©©©©©©©. 

| ,2  ,2  j2  J2  ,2  j2  j2  ,2  o 
q’S’ei’S  da's  "S  'ej  c3  © 
gt>t>t>t>|>t>l>t>p 

* * 


2 ° a 
csp  © 

03  © 

P CO  P 
© O © 

p-p 

11° 
a © 0d> 

JS  «5  § © 
©'g  p^ 
-2-3  .© 

© © p 

mil 

©-P  o ° 

® 2 ^p'S 
© p . © fl 
S3  © P -P  C3 

ro  ^ *ci  ^ kyj 

073 

.ts  teS  “ 

§^|go 

S br^<  © p 

‘a  .5  £ >>® 

P 2 go© 

J'fs.'s 

SSJ®P 

© o a 'S  © 
5p^9§ 
-O  »“ftg« 
■§  W>®.2  S 
^ a 2 p g 
^3  w_ 

p i.&i’g 

ig’Ss’a 

Soil's 

slug 

£ 33  © © © 

n W 


o 

rd 

P 


..P 

l! 


3| 

^ _ ! 'Sc » 

2iiggi|ss , 


I 

^cg 

-p 

3p 
9 p 


J2  -g 


b£© 

.2g* 

d 2 
p p 
•O  P 
« © 
>.  p 

!& 
w.  © 

p-2 

B « 

.H'p 
■*■>  a 
a a 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


567 


■g  :-2 


add 

© © © 
© © © 
^ ?h  f-i 
© 0)  © 
P<P*P< 
mo© 

HNH 


cl  fl  <D  a fl  • 

© © O © © 

© © p © © 

P p <D  p ^ 

© © Q,  © a? 

P<P<I7P<P< 


^ p s-< 

© S © 

Pi  ©Pi 
o o o 

CO  O CO 


^ 3 ph  © © © 

© o © © © © 

P*Ci  Phci  P-i  Ph 

o © CD  © © © 

0 PiO  P P P 

01  t*  oi  o o m 

<&<&&■  T-(  <M  (M 


Tji  t*  <m  <m  © t- 

CO*  t>  CO  C<f  TjT  © 

fH  rH  00 


l> 

OH  t> 

CO  CO 

O 

0 

s 

CO 

s • ^ 

CO 

So  05 

m 01 

O 

00 

<M 

S S CO  10  ® » 

CO  CO 

in 

” g 

iH 

ro 

m 

cf 

I-( 

O 

CO 

in  o 
co~© 


co  m 

3§ 


eowoco 


3,426 

1, 478 
3, 390 

91, 750 

6,217 
1,  Oil 

co  i>  0 h co  n • 0 

0 <m  i-h  tj<  in  n • <m 

CO  CO  <M  H in  • F- 

in*  0 c<T  jo 

6, 529 
19, 037 

..pounds., 
id  not  fur- 
..  pounds.. 

do  — 

1 or  dyed, 

, or  organ- 
..  pounds.. 

do 

;ed  or  cov- 
tess  furni- 

. .gallons.. 
do 

.pounds.. 

.ounces.. 

.pounds.. 

do 

do 

do 

nd  copper 
..pounds., 
rt  of  iron, 
firing  from 
..pounds.. 

®P 

’g  g 
3 63 

2 ® 

2§ 
pft 
n u 
oo 

_ , «■-■ 


S'g 

© S 
© » 
» .. 


O r. 

a ® * 
© g*.© 

i ^ 
«•§! 
SIS 

- > S- 
w q. 

<D  L-i 

P O ^ 


o 

op 


SJg 

n <3  2 

a Png 


O 0 

© 


© t>> 


'5 

.2.5  q 

tc^  r 


°J2 

05  o 

© o 


p 


2ag 


| a 

© © 


©p 

o © 

© Li 

li 

'*-13 

%% 

isa 


«■© .. 
£ ©=« 


alp 

a 0 © 
bcq  © 


ISMsII* 

'“a  1«S'S.S' 

,SgS5§£‘ 


S4®  ^ 2 ® I 

p © a 2 o 5 J 

.0  U -3  cS 

® P © Li  r-T  © Li 


ad  p,  c 


i-Sg.i®£§*6  5e«-?*«S3 

£ ti  P2 J3'a42ocsq«353^0s 

MS  ccm|pqpqqmPhO  a . 

| a« 

3 Zee 

M 


SdSil” 

fwfeia- 

•Sa'StS'Sg  : 

s^jjf  a § 2J.2  § |3  I 

H-2  | g<ft-q  N .£  © | C4  Jj 

i&ek  mm  h ^•-°-  ” 


ft'© 

q £ 

'§! 

q 13 

>2  © 

sp 

g.q 

£.2 
© ^ 
ft^ 
ftp 
O fl 
© 0 
O W) 

O GO 
M © 

-§.aj 

•— T ^ 

cS  crT  2 
© © 
a^® 

^ ® © 
o.g  ft 

w| 

ft  2 2 
. op  a 
e3  ■ q o 

mis 

gsjss 

O CQ 


I1VG  AIVD  MECHANIC  ARTS  (TO  RE  FREE)— Continued. 


568  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


I 

25 

& 

H 

v 

< 

U 

5 

fc 

< 

P 

w 

a 

H 

N 

< 

tm 

a 

a 


* 

N 

© 

a 

* 

* 

a 

a 

u 

H 

a 

i. 

a 

» 

« 

-c 

a 

w 


•sa^J  pnnod 
-raoo  ptre  ogioeds  jo 

^n9[BAIItba  U19J0[BA  p y 


■-d 
^ o 

9 ^ 

5 © 

© p, 

p © 
£ ft 


-s  *=l 

P © 
© © 


1 § : I : § 
SI1&1& 


© © 
© o © © 
PT3  p p 


© 

„ r,  _ p 
© © © © 


ftPr©  ft  ft 


'P'P 
p p 
3 3 

O © 

ftft 


© © 
© © 
© w 


■§■■§ 


.23 


O* 


CO<N  00 
O X 00  02 
coaocoiS 


OH00OO( 

HOOHL-OC 

o ooio 

r-T  l> 


CO  CO  lO  <N  CO  t*  02  X 

CO  CO  **  C2  HtJi  ^ X 

X O X O HH 


S3 

GO  O)  02  IO  ^ t>  02 


CO  O 02  rH 


<m  r>  co  t- 
r^F-Ti>r 
02  02  000 


of  r-T 


3 3S8S 

O WCOWH 

rH  cox  CO 

58  Soo 


3 5§ 

o o 


go's© 

-P'S  P'S 


o o o o 


p CO 

o © 
p '-B 

.1  0 
««H  •© 

o P 

a ® 

•3  g 
£g 
ft® 
S-9 

a. 

rtf  p 

P P 

eS  p 
» 

3S 


-pp 

ft© 

© wP 

..  © © ® a [s 

_ fctf©  -p  p ^ 

© ft.®  © § 

® 9*£m  ®.rt 
-o’  CC<1  ® a 

S © £ s 

2m  Htu 

9 a “ 

o .as 

a hh 


bcS 


Ec-p  © 

188 

6&fi 

.>  > 

gwl  1 

1 © © 9 


©«=a  , a 
« s©  I a 

- © © © n 


© © 3fl  009000  oo 

"O'tJ  P 3 rS'0’0'0'0'- a 'P'P 


■|cccc  §ofi 


3t3 

13 

•ss 

g & 
S o 
.2.3 


s<j 

© 

j5 

o 


q" « § 

Ifr  1 
2S  1 

a m 

© a © 

g 

22  *■ 

„ . si  * 

a © p **  © L - 
. g © 3 e3  2 «* 

S-sgt§gS  = 
« ca*s  o z 
OOHH  a g B< 

£>  © a 


jp 


© « © p-^  rt 

p ”,®  a ©po 

2 fc^o-2  © u 


1 


; ftg  a o ©A  I p«a 

IceJs^WoSutf 

■p  C p fc. 

P S C4  O 

<Mcq  pq 


Chloroform do 1 525  I 252 


REVISION  OP  THE  TARIFF. 


569 


» rH  lO  r-f  lO 

• <M  lO  CO  05 


» CO  CM  rH 
^ lO  to 


rH  05 
UO 


^ 00  t- 
00  CO  00 
lO  |>Tj? 


P'S 

s g 


P Pi  c 

a;  \\ 


gs 

© ft 


a 

© 

« 

h J i<  fl' 
<1)0  © c 
ft0?  ft© 

. O o 


-as  as 
a a 

P 0 
o o 
ftp,, 

a ©2  • j-  • 

© © 2 +=> If-*3 

0,0.3  a a a 

wwoS®s 

_®  ® ft©  © © 

g g © © ® © "fl"S  © 

© © p,ftftp,  © © p 

OOl-iOlOO  ° ° o 

WiO»NNM  NO  rH 


-0-0 

9 a 

P 0 
O O 
ftft 
a p 
© © 
ftp, 


;r0 

!9  ;i 

: 

.2g§p 

g :g<=<§& 

s o « o ©5  »!r 

■0  p-0  p p tn  p 
- © . © © © © 
ft  ; ft©  ft© 

O .OON  jo 


f0T3 
0 0 
0 0 
O O 
ftft 


ftft 


0 0 
© © 
O © 


' ft  0 

0.2$ 

^gs 


© ft 

HWO 
C~  rH 


-0  ’ 

p aV 

|g§ 

,ClO 
h WCL 
Qa©  fH 
PH  ® 
® Ph 

Sap 

© © <D 


s 


g£ 

© ® 

&g 

ft© 
® ® 


ft  0 ■ ® 

m © 'ft 

® « O 05  © 

p p-p-w-p 

© © “ 


-•**© 


a p 

© S 
ft© 


00  i©  iM  00  CO  l©  -HI 

OS  tr  © t*  O 

® ® t-  Ht> 


MHaninootr 
CS®®<MCSCOOO*© 
00  OS  h*  WT*  rH  00 


NON  COO®  C~®  (M  t*  »©  rf,  r*  (M  { 

c~l©  OHIO  MO  ©rHeOCSCS©  t 

co  cs  co©  co  co  oocsoo®tT® 

oTtr  i-Tcf  rHCO  rH  l©  Otf  intern 

t-<M  rH  rH  rH  CO  t". 


rH  ®rH®rJ,, 
® (r  rH  ® t~ 

® l©  CO  ® rH 


® ® 00  ® CO 

MV  rH  rj, 

rH  rH  CO  CO 


®t^COCOC-CO-H<l©  ®CO 
MOVOVfflWi©  ©OS 
© © © r-T®  h*  »©  o CO 

00~  ©~  <M~  CO  rjT  r-T  COrT 


rH<M 


CO  O ■ 
CO  ©J  i 
TjTlft 


I S |r  t 
l©  I©  O t>H(MC 

HjTrjT  t-T  ©"  vjT  CO*  ®"  U0~ 

© t>VNr 


CO 

rH  O 

IH  1«0 

to 

05 

CO  iH 

CO 

rH 

05  05 
O 

g 

irT 

(M 

g 

r"‘ 

g2 

(M 

2 0 
-0  « 
© >s 

2pj 

t>.2 

§8 

ftp, 


© t© 

a-o 

0 a 
a o 


o © 

0 © 

of  g 
553 

s 

a 


fcs 

9 

P 

3-_ 

ftO 

©5 

® > 

1J 


mi 

§<H 


>S 

-0_ 

0” 

© © 


® OS  00  ® 1©  rH  < 
OVrOHH' 
rH  <M  © b- rH  r*  , 


Hlrt-HOH 
rH  r-T  Of 


iJH&HIJ 


-3  a 


p p*3  c be o © p 

22  sJjf-ag  os  -g 

O © ft©  o © o a® 

OO  OOOOOfl 


sgJfiss'tJIlJ  i HI 
Jg^s  §s  « a6^<g 

H t<.222>  'g 
WfcOO  m 


®o®  °:rtH  3 ca  o « S S 3 £ 

J*s  „"dHfc  shph  a 


. „ -g  §2  g a ®| 

go  I 3-2  2 0 0-0,3 

© ©03,0 

9 ® swoooooW 

PhPh 


57*0  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


571 


NIO  O 


Hi  CO  03  00 
o 06  irf  c5 
05  CO  L-  CO 


O 03 

rH 


P-P« 
LO  o 
rH  03 


o o 


a d 

© <o 
V o 

SH  f-( 

<v  © 

pip* 

O lO 
03  rH 


g 

3 

o 

© © 

ft© 


a a a 
. - . 
© « © 


"ft 
: a 
. a 
• o 
: ft 

•*3  43  H 

a a © 

© © ft 
© © ” 


© o © 

©=©  © 


® © 
43  ' 

a ■ 


-a  9 

S P 

9 o 

© » 

ft®  © 

43  rj 

a © © 

§*^ 
HcaO 
HCLtH  W 


: fl 

1 * 

P Qj 

o ** 

© ^ 3 

p<.2  « 

-S  d h 


S>  ^2 


00  £*•  OONOO  CO  < 

o co  co  co  •— > co  o < 

00  CO  OO^H  rH  < 


• rH  COOOOO 


) H<  tfO  00 
I HI  lO  00  rH 

I CO  C5  CO 

* of  cT  oo  of 


CO  o 

as 


LO  uO 
H rH 
t>  03 


l>  CO 
»-*  O 
Hi  CO 

lo  erf 


IHC5C500  rH  CO  C5  00  03 
C5  C*  OC  O CO  rH  H1  t'— 

|>lOiOC5  tH(N00  C5H 


I O Ht^OO  OlO' 
rH  03  H CO  < 


rH  LO 
03  00 
l>  lO 


CO  O CO  rH  00  LO 

COOOOO  Of  05 

rH  rH  CO  03  LO  03 


fci 

:w>*.9 

^43-3 

©ga 

►.r®  © 

'a  -w> 

p,  © © 
=22  © 
>/3  sc 
)lSy.9 

oo  d 

£ 2=a 


© >5 

«ft 


! uo 
r a © 


=©  © 

° a 

II 

II 

3 4| 

aj 

© tf 

ZA  ^ 
a-® 


® 

3 a 

!=§ 

a a 


.-'1=1®.  | 

• a©  s b 
_®  > a^sj  © 

?5gS*aa 

a ro  © 

5 = 1$  i “ 

isle's 

j © 55  g ® a 

a © a ft  a - 

a © © o © 

^111 1 

3 © t.  ® cS  _ o 

•2  5 >>ft§  a 

3*a .aft  £344 
ft 


C-.  09 
© p 

53 

°-a 

S§ 

.2  ® 

§ a 
a.a 
xn  t* 

•a  o | 
9ft  o 
83  © © 
tea  © 

.9  9 2 

-©.g  Oft 

©^-9 
-®  § © 
©.Sp 
©44  *" 

Jill 

5ftoc« 


ft  m 
©ft 

15 

32 

wCm 
i 4©  © 


ft  ■ 

a © 

a'® 


oft  © 

®ft  © 

© © ft 
- ‘ © 


©”3  Lj  © 

®aS«^  ® 

'.9§t-2"§ 

iftH  ® g © 
ftftft 

P <1 


£-§. 


g a J 
'**'3 
a 

g 3 cs 

® a a 

a«  a 

>.Sp> 


'S’  5 

3 1 


ft 

h a 
o £ 

o © a 
►, 

•§1  9 

18° 
fto  © 
8g! 
'a  - ft 


343 


-a 

9 a 

rt  — 


|-s§a 

3=23  © 

*9  44 

®a?- 

i a S a ® 

1 1 o © © I 

-geq 

I ^3 

ft  ftft 


ill 

uo  © 

a -o 


r©  • » 

a ® © o 

§3=a=g 


.9  : a 

gal  ©a 
.92 i |p^  in 

’©S^lgag  .’Si'5  3 
.ftftp  ©QP  9 


31 

aft 


>> 

,®  : © 
ft  • a 
© 


© © 

-I 

a ° 

I pa 

la  a 


CLASS  C.-ARTICLES  WHOLLY  OR  PARTIALLY  MANUFACTURED  FOR  USE  AS  MATERIALS  IIV  THE  MANUFACTUR- 
ING AND  MECHANIC  ARTS  (TO  BE  FREE)— Continued. 


572 


EEPOET  OF  THE  SECEETAEY  OF  THE  TBEASUEY. 


punod 

-moo  pun  oppads  jo 
^napAinbo  moaopA  py 


Cl  ^ Cl  N 
mto 

cidrid 


I'g 

ts  9 'ts 

go  •§ 

D Q.  • P 

0^.0 

ft.®  © ft 

aSja 

© O p,® 


p a 
p p 
o o 
pp 


p p 
® ® 

® « 
HWoW  ' 


w o o o o o 

f*  rO'rC^  fO  ^ 


a a 
o a o o 

JZJ  £ ZH  Z3 
o3  O cs  cS 
bUPibDbS) 

u u u u 

© ® © © -w 

p,p.p,p<d 

.2 342.g  © o 
pans  ana 
© © © © © 

© © © W Pi 


.©‘■g 


lOOHOO  rH  MOONWO 

CO  O O h*  O CO  00 

CO  l>  (M  00  O CO 


00  iO  05  rH 
rH*  rH  00 


O 00  05  ift  < 
t^iOlOHOOi 
(M  CO  f <Oi 

co~  o t>csf 


oo  o co  h*  co  o 


C'T 


<M  00  CO 


i CO  CO  CC  CO  lO 


•3  : 

. CO 
"© 

a ® 

: p 

. a 

a : 

: » 

* I 

.9  a 


a 


Sts 


o . 

a- 

.S'© 


H © 

a«s 

©'g 

Org 

>>'£ 

© o 

'p  © 


.p-p 


© i 
3§ 

13 

' a 8 


_o 
® a 

.9-3 

’a  o 

a*  © 

Til 

SS 

© £ 

1 


o o o o o o 


°9pU 

a ” 'm 

."JflO 

-©  o p © I'© 

. . . . * a —t*  a a * p ■ ■ 

rSS§Sp'§b§-S« 

gilQO.S.-e  .cQO  o © 

¥ 

2 


© _ 
- - o 

© © Q 


a g 

° g 
«,© 
«M  «8 
o tJC 


as  a 
Oao®oo 
p Baaaa 
• o a - - - 

p,tc 


Is 

So 


« a 

s’S 


c3^  S 


i-o-dts-aS - J-ftS-S  S 
a o o © J-H 

Sou^toH  ©Jz;  ©fa 


a ® 

©•3  - g 
"3  o |P 


o « o 

_,  a © 

S^oo 


w o 

3 So 


.S-©. 

— a 


« so 


« © Ppj 

faHfco 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


573 


h®m 

e*i 


'O 'd  'P 

crnn 

BSP 
o o o 
ft  ft  ft 
u u u 

© © © -M 

' g g.g  © 

a a a t-t 
© © © © 
© © © ft 


,rP 
. 0 


§a 


ft  ft 

ft  O 

•ss-w 


a a 


p a a**  p 
© © © © © 
© © « © © 
^ t-i  ^ ftt* 
© © ©in  © 

ftftftc-  ft 


'p'p 

3§ 

© o 
ftft 

Ih  h-P 

© © a 

ftft® 

55" 
rt  a © 


IS 

P o 


» ftp 

>4  _ © 

l5  ° 

i a u 
i © © 

> « ft 


l-l  t4 
© © 
ftft 


S3  3 


CO  CD  O CO 


3 3 ' 


rH  CM 


COC5010 
CO  O)  CO  H 


m m 

in  t> 

m co 


00  rH  t>  t> 
00  CD  rH%* 


00  CO  00 
co  m 
O 00  t> 


^ co  m < 
co  m c 

^ csfef 

CO  (M 


co  oo  co  osmwo 

CO  CJ  ^ OOOHt^ 

*-i  oo  oo  co  a i> 


8^3 


oo  t*  m 
co  in  Tji 

l>MO 


00  05 

in" 


oo  o 
co"*^T 


oo  o 
co"in* 


rH  00 

cm  m 
cm  i> 


> a* 
•A  m 
o o 
a ^ 
§ © 

© 
fH  H 


*8? 


■U  2 

p © 

©os 

2R 


S'p'p 


<a  d 


ft® 

22 

p 


ftjs  ® 2 

f||S| 

za££& 


'p  • 

1*° 

p- 


©-© 
© © 
rC«P 

=31 

© © 
Ph  A3 

5 £ 
p8 
§ ® 
•p  O 
© p 

Id- 

eg  o 

^ CO 

&s 

£& 
.1 1 « 


-I 


1? 

2 

w> 

a 

S 


£ btd 

p P © 

®'g  © 

42  ft^ 
ft  © *? 


-©  2 g 

.114 


p 

I i 

if 

o ^ 

© 

*? 
boo 
P £ 

s? 

K 

*1 
C5  ^ 
<D 

II 
“ s 

© 


ft2  5 
**  -s 
© m © 

©(_  2ft 

2 ©5^ 

3 ©-§© 


p S ft-g 

+3  © © © 


o 

=2 

p 

a 5o' 
^ © © 
■3  ° 


S S ©* 
.3 


I rP 

o.2 

«© 


© 

P'S 


®© 

J'O 

£8d 

it 


I 42 
©.i75 


I o|b®2o 

Ho3  ggftl 


P 

1 

1 

2 

o 

+s 

_P 

ft 

P 

'P  . 

gpj 

P © 

©ft 


© p 

la 


m a 
p 


g p © 
°cpft 

fp  p fe 
© p © 

g O © 
Otj-u 
ft  © o 

§:§“ 

NS 


© ® P 
a P +3 

||J8 

;.a§ 


ww53 


■P  Q. 


© 
'd 
© p« 

s« 


Mg'S 
ftSS 
••  p-P 


o a 


©OPsPh 


S| 

„ J‘S 

^5  ®V3  g 


vfi 


rP 

2 

42 

03 

aI 


go 

.0  73 


~ . P P 
© © © P=P 
P3  2x3  © o 
+-td*;Bo 
-O  .°  ® * 

P^AH  of  of 

POO®© 


CU  ASS  C. ARTICLES  WHOLLY  OR  PARTIALLY  MANUFACTURED  FOR  USE  AS  MATERIALS  LIV  THE  MANUFACTURE 

IIVCJ  ANIL  MECHANIC  ARTS  (TO  RE  FREE ) — Continued. 


574  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


•89^a  pnnod 
•tnoo  pus  ogroads  jo 
!)aa^BAmb9  majo^A  py 


*ao6 


© pi 

4§So 

gg'* 

© Pi 

Hleuft 


•1 

: © 

: ^ 

. e 

• CT1 

i 

gag 

h 3 h 


1® 
a s 


P g 

& 

® fcD 
©a 

as 
® © 
© X 
be© 
e8  *3 
J*  O 

Pi>j 


P o — . 
« §<2: 
Pi  c 


•+S  © 

N 

jM’S 
'3  rp 


+3  S' 
°«w  > 
o ®'® 

.GO  S 

.a  g © 

« 5 X 
pa  -S  © 
© "5  tn 

a - a 

bil  £3  +s 
p-rt  p 
’•*3  © *p 

3ll 

©'s- 

'SS'S 


.'p 

I! 

. to 
■nS 
• ® 


£ 

©.2  © 

.2g* 

•3  ® * 

a © be 

■Bis 

®®o 

s S^J 

I ! s 


■fl  p ® 

gi'S 

© 

be 

© © _ 
-*3  ® 

o 

V 

>> 

g 

g o 

a ^ g 

Pi  g 

« ©^ 
'S  « a 

0 

c3 

0) 

TJ 

ct 

p 

© 

©^ 

c 53  0 
-S  O C3 

o«  a 
w 

WWo 

GO 

3 

o 

O 

*3 

0 

Pi 

O 

be 

p 

'p. 

Pi 


ill 


a a 


« o P) 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


575 


1-1  NH 

C4  CO  CO 

J33 


2 » 
Pft  an 
ft  P P ! 

^§3; 


h3  • 

ca  © 

aS 


ft2 


e.s§S 

2£ 

a 


•g  0*1  ft 

-So 

°-rO  O CS 

nS  2 * u 
flS  cS  « 

«ftHH 

u 

H 


•9  a 

S 


nS 

2 

I 

Pi 

"5 

© 

(■* 

ft 

rP 

0/ 

eS 

Oh 

© 

H 

ft  to 

jM  © 
CS  O 

pa  a 
o 


P2  O 


3 'tc^ 

“sa 

rtft  3 


n a 
©§ 
.s^ 

ft 


© 

§ SP 


ft  3 
© B 

ft  S 


;<lft. 


*3  B 

§ oS 
ts  'o  © 
ft  p 


p 

_ n 

2 I 
z & 
£ ° 
O pa 


3*s 


§ 3 

g § 

I § 

o B 

'P  "ri 

a o 

cS  ft 
co  a 
© o 

3 o 

p 

pa  ^ ” 

a 

a £o 

H o 


bJO 


nS  p 

P ft 
O <3 
ft  bD 


ft  H 


CLAMS  ■>. — MANUF ACTURED  AUTICLKM  READY  FOR  CONSUMPTION  (RUT 


576  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


577 


lO  tH 

s § 


‘ nd 

t3 

nd 

no  t3 

no  n3 

'a  'a  'a  'o  no 

nd  no 
P»s  tn> 

nd  S 
^ # § 

PI 

03 

s 

a P 

a a 

9 § 

9 9 

a a a a a 

a a a a a 

ti  *i 

s’ik, 

no 

P 

© 

no 

a 

a 

no  no 
p a 
a a 

£ 1 
Pn>  0 

nO  nO  nO  nO  no 

a a a a a 

a a a a a 

ggSS 

aft^ft 
»®  ®o 

p«fl« 

M ? 0*4® 

ftl^ 

®0  ftt, 

■g»  © « 

ft^ 

|8 

3S 

o . 
ftrt 

Pi  3 

© © 
ft« 

3S 

o.3, 
ft-g  ft  © 

53  § p © 
® © ® © 
© © © © 
3 ©3  © 

^ ©’-p 

? p « 3 
p © p © 
© © © © 
ftp  ftp 
© © © © 

©gg§# 

ft®  ft© 

© 33  3 

O . O . O . O . O . 

ft-2  ft3  ft-a  ft-g  ftg 
papa©apP©a 
©©®©©©©©g® 
ft  © ft©  ft©  ft©  p.© 
^O-ScD^OP^CP^G 

©no  ©r© 

©nO  'g  ft 

0 ft 

a ft 

a fta  ft 

-g  ft- g ft 

-g  fta  ft 

aftaftaftdftaft 

© 3 ® fl 

© a go 

©° 

o 10 

®>o  go 

gia  © O 

©o  go 

gin  gin  gm  gm  g® 

a cs 
1©  o 

■«J<  <M 

« gcc 

©tH 

oM 

^CO 

© cn  © 

•©Mtf  ©-^ 

® <m  co  m 

y~\  rH  ?"H  04  CO 

S oo 

CO  CO 

iO  t- 

O CO 

<M 

tH  O 

O (M  (M 

rH  'HH  iH  CO  CO 

Tt-  00 

*H  00 

S lO  S ^ 

rH  CO  CO  IN  O 

^ <X)  00  rt<  O 

eg  o 

oT  o 

rH  00  i-T  lO 

rH  OT  O -^T 

c§  S 

CQ 

^ CO  O O 

r-i  oo 

00 

C^T  rH  ic  rH 

s 8 

00  o' 


£ 


= ft 


‘S'3 


® a 

3 3 

© O' 


3 o o,®  © 

'p  fl-P  a © 

?i?ll 


© o n 

53  o.3 

2 fee 

p 


©•2  3 33  © 3 

© «m  ■ o_a  — i • 

*2  o 


ov  5: 

■a^S 

■“isl 

• © ^ 

• OtrJ  -P 

• * © s 

©eg 

©^  ft^43 
ftg  S © 3 

a I g M>A 

®g£«-.a 

•§  53  j>  § p 

g be  e® 

be  © no  a 

a .s  © ©3 

•pm  PnO  © O 

© — * Eli  o ^ 

3 g p © *i 

3 * © a j 

3 „nO,a  o 

2 <0  © ,03 

r-S  43  CP 

rf|g-gg. 

.saga 

l&i|f 

SpP, 

a>*3^s 

1111 

O 


™ -P. 

§*0 

a % 


Q - 

• , 'd  „ 
o 3 0 
__  C3  O 


» g 

ll 

3 ft® 

s^fS-g 

©"a  53 

g § 3 

ae 

3? 

+»^ 

- © 


pH  Q. 

O.Jh 

ft^  a 


x © ® 
^fee-ano 
a.2>  53 

ft  5s  o3 

2 © ft,’ 3 

3 .2 

l2  £_ 1 -r, 


1 3 -2  ° 


£ 

ce 


^O  n i 
«-§ 
a a 


o 

'no  © 


*g p a a a 

a3°J?g-a 


i|  Ill 


0-3 

.a  . 

3-S 

3 a 

2 o 


e-s  ® £ 

Sf#3. 
2 © 

2 S 


O'©  ® 

&3  o 

© © ft 


I! 


S3 

J|t> 

,© 

o 


Is 


nd 

a 

<S.g«H  « 

|l|ii 

§^.2  a * 

* .SKI'S 

©*3  © «8  a 

§o°s|^ 

Sl<5° 

<D  © 

2 toft 


lill 

Sg'gg, 
^ © 
'as  ® 3 

•-  o © a 

©^3  S' 


© » 

•ft  * 


,g  +=rH 

a ftg 

p®’n  *fl 

© ®e 

c3 

5*0 

nd  cp  . 

-23  © 

©Pm  O 

£ ° 

^ ©«M 
P-p'rO  O 

S§3 

‘s-gj 

3 — xa 

-g^S 

'O  9 p 

© ® © 

lipf  g 

a-p-S.2 


^ | r 
<1  I 


> > > > 


CLASS  MANUFACTURED  ARTICLES  READY  FOB  CONSUMPTION  ( DVTIAB I, E) -Continued. 


578 


REPORT. OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


■S9^.\  punod 
-raoo  pan  oijjoads  jo 
^aei'BAiaba  ox9joiba  py 


05  lO 


,d,c!'Or,d'T3r3rd'T3rO't3 

i § g i i i i § § § 

0.0  .O  .O  .O  . O J O .O  .O  .'O  . 

ft-g  P'S  ft-s  P'S  PS  P+2  ftS  P'S  PS  PS 

©®©®©®©®©©©©a>®©©©®©® 

ft®  ft®  ft®  ft®  ft®  ft®  ft®  ft®  P,«  ft® 

-2©.2©.2®”©®©-2©®©®®”©.£© 

sftaftsftaftaftaftaftaftaftsft 

gin  gin  go  gin  gw  gm  gw  go  gin  go 

eviifinoMoo^inmin 

rHO)CO-^r-lr-(OJeOOOeiS 


O . 

P'S 

** 

s © 

a p 


a ft 

8© 


3 1 

0-3 

H-g 


& 


bD 

£ 

a 

'O 

a 

•IS 

P2 

a’H 

I® 

£<3 


§ § 


i>  ^ oo 

CO  ^ rH 

rH  CO  © 


t*  CQ  O <M  <r> 

CO  CO  00  IC  © 

O CM  © © CM 

" s £ rf  3 


s s 


s $ 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


579 


d 

a 

a 

o . 
ft-s 
g § 
ft? 

03  & 


3 


d d d d d 

§ § i § § 

<d  d d d d 

§ § § § | 

ft-B  §.«  ftft  P--S  ft’s 


s nrs 

I? 


as  ® I ® j 

.2  fe  » 83  £ « 8 

B ft  B ft  8 ft  3 ft  8 ft 

giO  gift  gl©  gift  go 

©CO©CO©CO©eO«'<i< 
O (M  00  Ift 

r-i  r-t  i-{  <N  IM 


*gd 

u 

?& 

© f* 

ft© 

ft 


a a 

© © 
© « 


a a 

© © 
© © 


of 


0 ^ 

S SJ 

* ^ 
CO 

CO  10 

o>  CO 

O CD 

S3 

CO 

O CD 

3 

CD 

O 

00  0 
28 

00 

03 

CD 

1 

§ 

CO 

Ift  1 ^ Tt< 

h low 

Cl  1 T#4  lO 

§ ^ 

00 

S I 

tn 

0 

Jgeiff 

CO 

1 

CO* 

10 

CD 

s£ 

O 'H 

f-H 

t> 

t> 

rH  I 1OC0 

I 

| 

8 2 3 

oo  ci  t> 


2 & 


t>  in 

5 b 

O ■«* 


IM  00 
rH  CO 

o o 
00  o 


55  2 S3  £ 

O Ift  CO  o 

S £ £ £ 


CO  T*i 
T*  iO 
O CD 

CO  o 


c8  v 
§0|& 
- 1 a 
a.-S'ja 


© od 

si© 

SH  ft  g 

© ft© 

.53  a -g 
J©d  s 
© | a 

-'ll 

© 8*3 
| 2^ 


sag 

ft  © 
ft  _•? 

°d  >> 

d © a 

-2^  2 
d ft  3 
2 ftbC 


ft 


_ a 

S ® H 
a -rH  a 
a bt^ 

© a - 

>?&§ 
d SP" a 
.3  So 
0^2'“ 

£ a © 
a.  a 

®S  s 


d 

&! 


o © - 
a ® © 

®aa  a 

© © •r-s 

l|ft  2£> 
§ Z a §2 

42  g © | 

• r-cg'3  I © a 

^s'slgg1 

US  MS* 

5-3  S S § 


ft® 

i® 

© © 

a2 

« § g 

® § U 

®4h  ,© 

Sm 


o © 

ftf> 


© ft 
d 


© o_ 

a Is 

aj^E 

aS  © 

£f  a 

Id  8 

« ©^j 

© ©qs 

1318 

a © © 
- -2° 

2 a -9 

l|£ 

|S§ 

3 © M 

is*- 

2 tto 

©.a1© 

M bt)  I 

■ w 


go© 

ft  ft© 
.s  a«w 

® © « 
2 o'E 
© _ © 


L2 


©3  ®t- 

® o © W 

® P © © 

'o  ® l>  o 


rt-2dd 

W O Q} 

tkfi  .2 


Jdd 

§ SKS  § a^ 

<2  ft  be 

I” 

a 


H OUk. 

S“g 

ts+j  be 
- ft  - 

be®  © 
.2  2® 
leS'7 

C3  . ft 

a 

•ci^1  © 
gd^ 
®d  g 


4->  --4-> 

® m a 
© a © 

&2| 

a © © 

d 02  O 

da© 


“421 

5-l« 

gw  ft 
d © § 
,M  2 

H fl  e. 

® c3  o 


©J  - 

d 2x) 
B’®  © 


Sf  63 

si's? 

W 


23 
© 

^3  © 

©2 
o a 

©. 

0 © 

-33 

M © 

w'S 
3^9 
o s 

aa  “-3? 
a 0.2  ® ^ 

aa  a wft.S 

t.  © g g tn 
O ©^.2  © 

©2  © § © 
p®<h®  a 
a-4*  © bra 

o'3,2  © a 
o © © © g 

© .©4J  O 

fta  >3  * 
42  8 a^W 
a 


^bO 

©a 

S.a 
a ® 
g’d 

s 

a“ 

.2 

as 


O 0 00 

. ©d 

e£  a s 

|l8 

■ai 

Wi  « 

® © 


O'd 

<D  *13 

SI 

a ft 


a^ 

is 

E £ 

s a 

o © 


H1©  a! 

“I'H 

ja  S a 


d © 
?.2 
© ^ 

11 


a © 


ft 

o 2 


If 

^6 

d 

Is 

«3 


«S4sj 

®d 


d 2^  ^ 

TWO 

d ©^ 

o 


© a 
© d 

j m 
2^ 

CCCQ 


CLASS  D.-M  \\IFACTIRED  ARTICLES  READY  FOR  CONSUMPTION  (DUTIABLE)- Continued. 


580 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


•se:pu  panod  I 

-moo  pue  opioade  jo  ^ < 

4aap?Ainb9 tnoio^A  py  | ^ W<N< 


oo  as  cq 


*'9'9 
“ft  a a 
SBP 
Coo 
® ftft 
(- 

U © © 
® ftft 
01  oo  as 
00 

fl  o§ 

SJ2J2, 

oo  oj  eo 


r?'9  rtf 

Po 


(->  Pi 
as  © 
ftft 


9 a 

© © 
© O 


ftft 
ao  as 

9 9 


•3  ® 
-2.® 


3 

a 

Is 

ftoo 

ar 


s >> 

^'3 

» 


<M  lOOO 

S 


00  UO 

o-v 

etfco' 


(M  OO 

3SS 

iS 


r>  ic 

rH  CO 


CO  FH  ^ 

§ r>  ? 

5 


323 

t-  W C5 
■H?"  CnT  iO 

ONH 


IS  « 


O 00  » 

w « S 

SSJS  ss 
®S8  £ 

«o  eo 


9 ® ® 
fj’oO 

o 
ft 


Scwft 


l ► 

0>H 

«s  © 

r9ft 
© © 
*9 
> ® 
2S 
ft'E 
-©ft 
a 


M © 


ft  cs  a 

& © ® 13 
S . bcP  h 
© «e  « 
ft  A'gftft 

* SPgg  ° 

«Tga;3 

*q  © eS  © © 
Zl'd  © t£tc 
© ® ©ftft 

t<  eP  ^ ft  ft 
3 O O 

o5UOO 

« 

go 


a«' 

1s|S 

§ g|3 

a a p-  © 

S g'gti., 
9 O © © 
© © , _ 
. ^ hrs 


3 ft  . 


5.5 


3—  eS 


I 

s a 


© © ■ 

©- 

S*M  a- 

l«fe| 

||af 

■5  ?ft  w 


-9 12  © oo 
a.  © 9 

ET  ft  Pm 

eS  cS  © 

fe  > H 


© ^ 
« © 


9 

g ^ P|  ft  ® hi 


® ft.^! 

“J  ' 
1 I 


eS 

>5 

© ® 


■S’S 

9 9 


9 a 

®.g 
© (- 


O'  .S3  © 

* -2’c©' 

© ® es  © 

93  ->>* 


. at 

'g'g 

as  a 


u 
1-2 
* a 


© o 

i'55®- 


® 9 o 


© © "9  eS 
g >-  9 ft 
o 2 § 


I 

5 >i^rs  ao  © 
■**  ft  a>  « 

« ® 9 


ft  © ftft' 


to 


I si 

a h « 

. « CS 


ft  « 
ift  g 
tt 


oOO  O 


O 

© og 

p-l  ®l  9 

O ® >5 

e 5o 
© © © 
ja®- 

o gO 
<Sjq 

gH 


f5 

-I? 

ft'o  g 
2 w ft 


I 


•a  ft 

© i ■* 

8£S«JL 

®ft^i  p« 

||5 

o 

3 


— oO 

5 x 

SP 


1 -. 

a1  ^ ©ftft 
% g 9 © P- 

©.S«  fe-»a  = « 

-gft1?  ®«s  >» 

'Sg'o-sl’gg. 

5 U s > j ? 

2 S5  5 ® — o © 
M^^Oft  ® 
fteft  © 0^3  ® 

ftft^  u g © s 
,aci  oooft  >ift 

t ttA  PQQ 

S-9 

w 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


581 


o o 

05  CO 
CO 


<D 

P< 


I 4 
© 

P< 

8 


a a 
« © 
© © 


P.pH 
O Ift 


5 £ 


I 

5 

cm'P 


CM 


x*  40  1C  CO  05 

CM  00  CM  ^ 05  x* 

CM  CO  O CM  CO  O 

iff  of  oo  of  irf  oo 


00  (M 
CO  o 
co  oo 


oo  co 

CM  CO 
rH  05 

CO  uf 


CO  40 
© CO* 


_ CO  o 

COCO  rH  CM  COOl  00  © 


t>  CO 

iff© 
xf  o 
CM  CM 


40  O CO  40  CO  4 

£3  $i 


g§ 

CM  CO 


00  CO  CO  < 


I 00 


•CM  00  C 


CO  00  X*  C5  CM  X* 

cft^  cfcf  of  of 

00  05  CO  40  Cl  C5 

CO  CO  CO  CO  X*  oo 

c4vr  ph  iff 


^ • to  • 

^•d  ^ g'f 

® d-d  © 3 

3 t>j  ■ P»s 

’S  „ • « ^ 


•3  P* 
a 

s o 

o 

© 

. © 

_a  +> 

o .s 
a « 
a, 

© . _r 

© 'd 


'd'd 
© © 
d b 

j^a 

© p* 


a © 

a1-© 

« a 

tra 


P n-T 


”•2  ii 
1?S-1 

I ft 


°2 
e g 


“ o§_-®2 

| S°o«S^ 

§ |£  © ©nf© 

SSfoSJI&S, 
®ife  Wp 
o3 
w 


be  ® • 

.9 

a 

ca  >» 
-2  £ 

9 , § 

03  p 

pr&  g 

3.JS 

* a 

© a 

-d  ft 


bC© 

B'd 


a. 3 © 
ggS 
-ft©^ 
.©^5  S’© 
2 © ® cS 

ft£ 


^©'d-S© 

'd  a©  ® £ 

^3-2.0* 


.9  (=1 
© 

U — 
c3  ® ® 

f**B 

a © 2* 

© ®^s 

+^rd  © ^ 

® ® © © 

'S  t>50  > 
g'd^  C 
Hr-T-tJ  -© 

tf^a'd'd  | 
hr©*  03  ejj-j 

S 

n 


rp  \ rp 

S'g  | d-d 

g « g ►» 

g |3  g g 

8,|&g,3 

S?SS^ 

CL  f-J  ^ Q,  U 

S ft  * g ft 

®5  o ® 

© a *S  T a 

° © ft®  3 

(M'd*  ® m 

B*-* 


| © a 

© © 

<M 

rH  O 

•a'-e-e 


-3  ° © 

-©  in  > 
®H  O 


n 


dd'B’Sta 
'd’d  ii'd'd 
© © © © © 

'd'tf  "'d'tf 

P 


£ : 


a.  . 

II 


ti 

I 

o . 
be  | 

bta 

|l 

|8 

^_o 

aT  tn 


.a 

i 

o< 

.9 

© 

0 

j>> 

1 • ® 
■?!! 

g-^2 

•Sfi® 


03 

a 

be 

.9 

•a 

| 

a 

o 

! -- 
Sal 

•d  2 f5 
1u-a£ 

a#  © 


a.S  ® ©'3  § 


© a. a 


••  © © m cj 

Tj  O^tud  o d 

©va<-3©  2 

§ o fe  aT  H ^ bd  9 

21?  i o®  o ® be 

- © 9 © 


mr°sj 

ui-gi§ 


©-a 

^9 

II 


S & ^ ri  ° g /«  h 

-a«g®a^ggg 

° ,S  © ?r2 .9  © 

fl'g  d ® -a ’i 
© drs  <s  wp 


be 

'g 

.9 

4^ 

*3 

c* 

> 

2 

ft 

\>  o 


2^1 
-a  §5 

afUi-a 

rS-©0Q 

la 


"2  ® 

§J 

§9 

W)05 
. QJ 

^ a 


,©  I 

© m 
® d-d 
111 
223 

O u Pi 

•9o2  ^ 

'S^^a'3  Aq’ 

®l2£r|  -g8; 
S^MCQ  ’^! 

a © 

ish  H 

Sn 


CLASS  B. MANUFACTURE D ARTICLES  READY  FOR  CONSUMPTION  (DUTIABLE) — Continued. 


582 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


•sayui  panod 
•raoa  pan  otjioods  jo 
inepuinbo  inaaotBA  py 


HCOt* 

«>©i«d 

10 


HI 

O P o 


fel 

sa 

»i> 


p a 

<£>  © 
© © 


P.P- 

O IO 


ss 

o © a p 
, r n n 
S ©3,2 
p.p.'®* 

op  GO  ^ ^ 

p P ftft 
© ©oo 

© OlOiO 


P.P. 
Ift  o 


35 

o-e 


P 

cp 

a 

.2^ 
■t->  00 

P.30 

SS 


55- S 


i©  I eo05<Mt> 

r-T  I ect>eo«r 


Olft  o 

ss  s 

cd'-n  o' 

<e-o 


eocoeoi> 


co  co  co 

3 83 


IS  S 


fflcTef. 


23  -33 

33  Sg 


pft 

.S 

3 


©frt  ^ 

1®  P 

g c 9 
■g.S  M 

§ p-2 

‘fig 


lo.S 

B 1 £ 


«*3T. 
g * £ 
||| 
©42  g g 

03  "eS 
© I- 


oo  eS 

^ 5 © 

©M</2 


«M  2 S n 

° B © S 
©.«— 1 © 

■S'SII 

g p p.2 

©3  p © 
'2S<*.s 

P P 

'3®^- 

OBOO 

s|r? 

2 © 2 2 
•S  ®«S<3 


.2  ^ ® ,©  - 


|E‘ 

Sw 


©& 

O 


ISZWhJ 


ago 

3 Si'S 

*34? 

® ® a 

|1§ 
> « © 

P of 
B<iop 
-*>3  P 


8 I « 

"a  ® 

lI'E  © 

tsl? 

®^CCO 


p ® 

g © 

P3 
os  © 


&** 


t 

o 

Pi 

© 

InO 

•§§ 
3 a 

^ I 

°a 
3 'a 
3"© 
© © 

i a 

<n  aT 

s s 

bBO 


i| 

H 

p » 


<G^Op>  © 
W) 

P-©5^3  B. 

. 9 I£  2 « 3 

®cSgc4~  S' 

§ "&.g  ■& 

^-S®" 


p§ 


© 3 

i _ 

m © 
p rp 
H ft 


© © 
© .3 
P3  « 

© P 


•P  *- 

bt®~ 


O 

•?  "in 
pa  pa 
tx  +» 

§ a 
2„  -3 
■3  I 
& e 


S.g  £.g-s 

OcsS 


iZ'*  fc  tx 
■ o 2 © G 

j n B«-i  O 
CCod  ft 


of  iron  or  steel 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


583 


as  co  co 


8 a 
5 P 
© ° 
ftp. 

© © 0 
ftft® 


so* 

© © CL 

© ©.7 


-0 
a 

I S 

& 

P H 


'O'P 
a a 
0 0 
o o 
ftp. 


"ft  ftft 


H*  Hct' 


© M R 

o © © 


0 0 
© © 
© © 


0 . 0 

§ § 

$5  S 

ft  ft 
in  m 


: 0 
. © 

:.B 

0 © 
© ft 


® 0 
ft© 

eo  oo 


© © © © ©©©©£©©© 

ft  ftft  ft  p.p.p.04©  ftftft 


P+S45-U  fe+J-P+J 

©®©®ft©©© 

© © © © » O © © 

R R © Rfl  R R R - 

-'-'©©5®®®  © 


ioioort(N«ioin  o 

CO 'C  rf  ^ 1-1  CO  CO r-l 


0 0 

© © 
« « 
R R 
© © 
ftft 
o©> 


s 


8§ 
00  rH 

o 


• OOHCOO 


r-r 


I lO  I-H  CO  l>  O <M 


O IO 


o_o 

'P'O 


® . ® © ® 1 
P .2  Is  P^o 
g ^ g 2 g^ 

2 • 2-g  2 • 

ft  > ft-ii  ft  . 


R R 
©,© 
R=3c*-' 
■g-0 
o © 

0 t* 
■0  2 
- ft 


-o 
ArPi 

jP 

| ® gj  S R 

§>!  fS|S, 

fto  « g.g  P 

„s  •0©®S§'O®I 

MO  :£  2 O ^oft  ft£ 

ns"®  | ©'ft^'JS  ,2-gfc 


si  s 


0-0 
•0  0 


0 ** 
0 0 
btg 
P.'S 


® * ^ « g-g  M-a 
0 O ® S'®  ® © 0 q 
© R ©-2  O'®  ©03 
°®  • .a»So*1 


flS  '3  . - 
£ g © 


! % ® © O 

S««o00°  ft  .-■« 

ca  2 o © <— i cc  a gj'5 

P^^S  & ©2  \ MB g 

© R fe  0 


©^ 

® b2  - 
© o.9  r 

1 Mg«e 

^ .g  0 03 
-3-0  © 
.*0 


Jj  -S  “ 3 c 

O 2ft ®nn 
2 ®03 
o © « as 


ts  ® P 0 

■IgSrf 

h.  re  ® © 


w 


ft  ® © © 
cG'd^cfl 


-©  jj  ^,1© 

o a § p.o 


-fH  Pc  ^ 

jooW 

te 


*.Hg 


111 

S|i 

S?|.Ba 

5 I 
S £ SSl.tn® 


1©  o 

§30 
*3$ 
® 0 
Pi  Pi 

®-§ 

3g 
0 © 

|-s 

Id  ® 
fe  ft 
P ® 


O bfi 


© 0 


..§ 
22 
0 0 
£ O 
0 ° 
A ® 

3 5s 


®^je- 

0 Wrd . 
gVgtH  gig 
.2  .2  o © P 

R-°  © ^ >1-0 

g'g  a s=s 


gpp 


>a'E 


© 0 R 

rtS  0 „® 

g ° ^2-3 

Sga 

© R 
-'P 


- O 


0 0 0 ® 

ftS  ftP  ©-  fl  . 

«.S .0^3  ^ - 


QO  ® 

0 g 

2 M 


w 0 
m . 
© n 


r©  p 
p 0<H 


0 ©^0-0  0 ftMg-£  h 

^iP®©®©  f.-2a^ 

mnuihz* 

SpL-®  ^-o-g  © © 

p|el^Hf|°|2 

© £ ojq  o^.S  ftOS  ft t> 

■2m  O O 

R 

0 

w 


© • a ° © 
p © p ©eg 


«H  ® 

© 

m M « 

2^2  'g 
^ S 

4^  Ci_l  ^ 

p6»® 

P Rf  .g 

. . P © gft 

© ®-0  Q.® 

0 ©-£ 

S © ®^P  O'M 
, as  § u ° 

© g2  -22 

—I  P 'g  £E  -O  "K 


■So 

-Mft 

fe-0 
1?  © 

^'P 


-2^ 
0 R 
ft© 

<£% 
-R  -R 

p a 

® g 

§i 

=i 

a* 


0 © 
►S, 


0 0.0  © 


©5S®0®  ©/© 
p^MS»grfl 


W C3-|“  p 

®.s  a'g  a t£  g © ^ a s ®"22'i 

i Is  §’$s.  "■§!•§  lsl^c 

© 0 a 0 M « © 2 n d 


©«a0rd®©2a0P©- 

a-a  2 &s  §.s^  § ®5  ° 

p pq  pa  Pn  Ph  3 -SCJO^ 


o 


CIjANS  D.-MANUFACTURED  ARTICLED  ItEADV  FOR  CONSU1HPTIOIV  (DUTIABLE)— Continued. 


584  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


cthe 


REVISION  or  THE  TARIFF. 


585 


O CO 
CM  ® 

t>  id 


pi  a a 

© © © 

> © © © o 

<13  tn  © ^ 

) . © © © 

ft  ; ftftft 
in  © in 


P.  ft  ft  ft 


©13 

© 

ft 


• 'O'* 

I » '•  1 <M 

i in 

! o 

! o 

• o 

:©  : : 

i © i 

| 1 J 00 

• • lO  • • 

• • > xf  -CO 

; o 

! S 

! § 

• 00 

:S 

• 00  • • 

i t CO 

• » j 

; ; ; 05 

• 'CO  • • 

• 1 ^ It 

• ’ ' r^T  ! co 

• • • 00  • o 

■ ©" 
• CM 

• CO 

• 05 

• CO 

• 05 

is 

is 

• 05* 

• CO 

• CM  • • 

: jg 

i ® • 

i i Is 

• « ^ II 

• • • CO  'CO 

■ CM 

2 s 
0 O 
© ft 
ft  u 

© ®+3+3 

© ft  a p 

fttr©  © 

«S°o 

■*>  p © © 

p © © © 

© © 

° O O O 


©5  © l ft  ® 00 

® Tt'  in  *© 
^05 


fcO  o 


HCOHt-t- 


o o 
©%*“ 


CLASS  D.-MANUFACTURED  ARTICLES  READY  FOR  CONSUMPTION  (DUTIABLE)— Continued. 


586 


BEPOET  OF  THE  SECEETAEY  OF  THE  TEEASUEY. 


punod 

-inoa  pan  oppods  jo 

^aotnAinbe  arejoynA  py 


s 

a , 

•Js 

Pffl 

at 

0 s 

W © 

® a 

f-  © 
o ® 

'C 


a a 

<0 

© © 

® © 
ftp, 
o o 


OS  05  CO 

oo  >o  co 

ao  co  im 


os 

CO 

eo 

(M 

So 

eo- 

■>* 

a 

oo  eo 

t-00 

t-  co 


a . 

t.\ 

c8  c- 

fti 


11J. 

<9  <z  a 
© P © 

1^5’ 

« © „ 


p a 
■ © 
:g* 

! p's 

• B+! 

■ * I, 

-ft 
I oa 

n 

: © © 


• 3-g 
:•§* 
: ®-9 


: s a 

: ..a 

. go  o 
£ 


00  cS;£ 

III 

§jg 

©o° 


s« 

”1 

I * 

Ss 

frd 


ja 
^ p 
£ 3 


>d 
* 
o 
ft 
Ad 

>>  .3 


©X1 
£ a 


« © 


0«1 


CS  ® 

b © — 

Ci  X e*  w #— « 

p-5  -2  *5  00 
- 1 S «-g 
p r p 
“ a © P - 

42  wrS 

H © * £-§ 

^£'3 


P!  3 


5 S 


■ 

-g  © © 

g p© 
« ® £ 

g§* 


p p 

© © 
© © 


® o m 
00  GO  CO 

to  of 


5 00  o wooi> 


I 

g 

(4 

w 

© 

•§1 

.92 


ill 


P’S 
© > 


2 p 
a ® 

2- a 
!-§§ 
Ill 


a ® •* 

J2.2  « g 

•2  © S"  P 

2 b-3  2 (- 

' **  — fl  © 

W W 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


587 


So 


NCOlOiCi 


00  00  CO  00  00  T 


& 


CIOOOOOT)'^ 
O CjO  05  (N  lO  lO  l> 


pH  I 

a l 

g<s 

j§! 


M * 


CLASS  E.—  ARTICLES  OF  VOLUNTARY  USE,  LUXURIES,  &c.  ( DI1T1ARLE)- Continued. 


588 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


•sapu  pnnod 
-moo  ptre  0pi09Cl8  jo 
juapjApiboaiojopsA  py 


388 

»po6 


© o o o o o 
Q/P  nsrO'^rO 


a a o 

g | g 
o o o 

P*  P< 
u u u 

<D  <D  CJ-. 

P(  p4  Ph 
00  co  ® ^ 
434^+3  g 
C fl  P 

S 5 S © 
© © © ft 


-dfl 

a a 
P P 
o o 
Pi  ft 

U fi 


a * 

3 5 


0 . 

O O 

P-P- 

© © 
p-ft 

UJ 

s| 

00  05 

« ® 

ft^;  - 

1 

p"p 

ft 

0 ©^ 

<u  0 
5 0 © 

© © 
« © 

ftft« 

CQ 

■€©■ 

O O 

in  0 
Jbco 

CJ  M 

ftS 

I % 

GO  © 

§J* 


05  CO  00 

iri'cTad' 


<N 


co  in  <m  t>  »-< 

CO  O CO  -T^  CO 

O O CD  o 


NnHOONO 

rtCOHHOOO 

«e-oo  id  05  00 
Co*  eocf 


b-  o 

O K HH 
*T  o'  cTj£ 


t>  T-l  Ot^ 

OOlH  t-(  05 

CO  00  00  CD 

00  o <*csf 


^ CD  <M 
WOhim 
ICOOOCO 


00  f-i  lO 

2 SS 


o 

*2 

-2  . 
eS'P 

a § 

S a 


•*>  © 
*3 


o n • • • 

ad  o o o 
a'P'O'P 
- 5 • • • 


as 


I! 

_ H3 
05  »FH 

£ 2 
. .*s  ft 

§!■? 
p-p  © 

e.  i-i 

og® 
o ® g 

gSS 

>,S>? 


.2  ft 
P ft 


d “ 
© © 
«r© 


£ 

o 

C <rs 


!«!  i s 
gi 

5 -a  x £ 

3*2^  O 

. i 'T*  P-J 

J £ © Gj 


oc  © © 


© .P 

2?  * 
a ■* 


'll  ^ O. 

P © ffi  ® 

9 3-«  © 

5 d o o 

S © Q © 
s*f  I « 

- £_  Si  I ■— I 


• ft  00  - 
eS'go 

I'M* 

.•d 
I'd 

• § a 
: 0.2 

; w,  a 

2 go 
© g ® 

6S® 

ftj'® 

S|2 

fcc°  0 

.S'®  © 
ns 

p 


! © 

_ J'£ 
g 2 S 

- P -*3 
co  d © 

S-  . 

c4  cs 

.|a® 


SS&M: 


; a c-T © h f 


© 

|S-5yi||a 

•2  > 


1§ 


U — 0 


•Pop 

go 


^ a h., 

-'V-i  r.  — f^->  V.  : 

® 2 © "^  c®  P 

J © « 

s »—3 


* ^ © g 

4?r-l^-  «.ci  f( 

5 


q o 'ca  cs  ^ 


S g-ft  © 
© * ft  pj 

.tfg  nft 

002  <5 


fcO^ 
<M  g 
o ^ 

s-a 


; 'P 

• > 

II 

11 

I 


0 o 


.5  a 

jl| 

A 8 B 
p:— . © 

SAS 

cp  cd 

* « 2 

•«<5  © 


© © « ® 

OOPS 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


589 


d 

I 

o bt 
ft 


O O 

fiP 


<N 


a a 

© © 

2 2 

O O © OS 

r^jrj  tSJ  bfl 
f,  ^ O f| 
<D 

ftftn  ft 

too  ©W 
t-  »n  ftcM 
~ n t~  c4 


d £3 
© bop 
2 © 

© © t_| 

'P  p,® 
H „ ft 
£ -Vs  xn 
ft  a *» 

§©  d 
© © 
HO° 


d © a 
©r©‘d 
eg  ^ ft 
© O ft 
'Op,© 
n lT  ft 

Sis 

O G>  P 
CO  « <D 
*-h  O ° 

<e-oo  no 


00  lO  t> 

ocfocW 


o *-i  < 


CO  05 
oo  t>r 


^ (M  < 


O T-» 


O T*4 

83 


o>  t-ao  (O 


o?  ao 
<M  O 


CO  (M  1C  CO 
H (M  O H 
O CO  CO  tJ* 


IIOOO  10 


t>  d l 

05  rH  < 


CT)  CO  <3  ® 

2 3 d .p-j  a »— i © »— i 

P'S  O p 0 ®S  eg,S 
btft.g  3 bl£  br/© 


d«H  «®  P«  -- 
‘ bc^  ©^g-  o 

© >i®  r p 

_rt  JL3  ~ f-i  * 


© O 

fl  o 
o © 
ftft 

a : 


o.g 

r-j  © 

§ & 
eg"+s 
cfl  © 

| a 


ft©  ft 
T3 


§ ©|  £ a 

2*^  O ^ -r-J 

0 CD  0.9 


! S ?•“  o 

i I SJ-" 

, Z&S  I 

> ft-  a 5 +s 

]$**'■* 
i Sojg 
! ft»o  m 
I eg  © u 

i|?S  gu 

^•|2ll-S 


d • • d 

© © o g 
n'©’©^ 


d d 

eg  eg 

dOr© 


d a 
© * 


© o 

a a 


© a n 
£>©."© 
rz  o ft  d-d 


a a 


£ M; 

's.a 

2 Er^'r"  ■ w w 

'S  g g 

oo  o 


d S o 

c3  ^ 

„ o p 3 
g h 

s-g-ggg 

gfjSS.? 

S^asgC 

© s’ft©  © ° 

g^aes 

g © 

^©3  o © © g 
^ eg  eg  eg  eg  2 
©,_  © © © © 
” o bfibCbC.S 

O3 « .9  .9 .9  >> 
•S  ©Id'd’d.-^5 

•|  |o3'i  I a 

t;  3 n d d « 
d -~o  O O d 

© aoooo1 


• a 


s® 

-dIC 


cC.9 


1 -hd  ts  d r*  d 


bfi 

a 

1.1. 


9-1 
•s  ft 


© 3 

f I | 


90  OC^dsOO 


J2 
d d 


<d0.2 

.9  >i 


d 2 
O 3 

OO* 


bo 

#d 

'©'a 

© a 

al 

a^ 


p,® 
2 3 

ftpj 


ft-° 

© rgj 

2 d 


g §,'© 
o w<© 

•©  B'© 

>>8’? 
© w o 

ft 

O 

°al 

-d  | 

§|3 


*©  ,9 

P3  ^ 


rt  © 

lr 


o'eg 


,®-o 

"©  £ 
'Cld  © 


© >*§£  © s a w 

ll^dSi® 

^ #rl  >-4  ^ ri  2 


g©  2 „ 

5-<  S O 
S3  O^d  - 

4J  t-  ^2  a? 
O n ^ o 

<2a§S 

gWWP 


® f-H  d ft  © CC 


2d  Epft! 


daoj-  o g S 

•rl  - ^©  d^^r3 

I'SSf'S  g|a  gg 

CO  O ^ C&  ^ S fllH.H 


CLASS  E. — ARTICLES  OF  VOLUKTABY  USE,  LUXURIES,  &e.  (DUTIABLE)— Continued. 


590 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


•sojbj  pnnod 
-moo  pun  oijpods  jo 
juoiBAinbo  raojopjA  py 


»0  S3  . 

. O J, 

&|li 

t-i 

© H 

P,® 

Pi 


U t-i 
© <D 
Pi  Pi 


Pi  Pi 
lO  O 


•Js 
as 
a © 


§ 3 

o c© 

O (M 

£ ~ 


t>  lO  05 

i>  o 


00  HH  OlO 

co  icT  co  cT  ocT 


eo  io  oo 

S CO  o 


5 3 


is 

p ^ 
o © 
'-5  S3 
g M 

§*» 

to 

11 

o’© 

a 


|S 
©£ 
S S 

2 P* 

© o 


© 

s 

■a 

53  ® 

» 

3* 


P J3 


-O  t> 

CS  p 


u P, 
..  O © 

. « o 


'fjs  I 

® P-2 


f £ s &£© 

© P-o  ‘p.  c,s 


a 

m © 


Pi 
a-^  o 


©'a  a 

■©  S's'a 

t-  * 

aP-  a r h 
>.P  _<3  P-© 


&§ 

© o 

„S.2 


Eo 

g 


SQfc 

o 

£ 


= g'E® 
a S 

a E 2 a 
« §.r*® 
gOP 

Pi 


S-§«.2  W 
».So«  ° 
5.3  ®-~  5 
.2^h  ® ° a 

® rt  o a a 
p.'att.a  a 

r—  . CC.'S  ^3 

S~:I  g,  .s 
>>ISs 

i © t-  ° 

®t-sPO 


■a  a 

P © 


«« a 

©.a 

la 

1* 


© © 
.2  2 
^ S 

5_  o 
o'”* 
*2 
as 

S3  ^ 

.. 

• 

4i|| 

-r!2  c 
3*  p -2 

p:  g£ 


•s  M-pe 


.9 

P3  rt 

a a 


© pi 
^ if  © 
§ ©_§ 


P O 


.9  - 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


591 


CLASS  E.-ARTICLES  OF  EtlXURlT  OR  VOLUNTARY  USE  (TO  BE  FREE)-Continued, 


592  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY, 


•eaipu  ptraod 
-moo  pus  appads  jo 
(;nop3Amba  tnaao^BA  py 


Bt 


w « 
n o 
«Scrt 


S 

' q 


C5lC0  05l>  O 
00  Tf-  W O 00 
iOt-t^OOO  I fcO 

^§8335  Is 

O <N  © H <M  It- 


<lpqoPW 

1 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


593 


THE  FRENCH  TARIFF. 

THE  AD  VALOREM  EQUIVALENTS  OF  THE  SPECIFIC  RATES  OF  DUTY 
LEVIED  UNDER  THE  GENERAL  TARIFF  OF  FRANCE. 


Treasury  Department,  June  13,  1885. 
The  Hon.  the  Secretary  of  State  : 


Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  request  that  the  consul-general  at  Paris  be 
instructed  to  furnish  for  the  use  of  this  Department,  as  soon  as  practi- 
cable, such  information  as  he  can  obtain  from  official  sources  showing 
the  relation  of  the  specific  duties  now  levied  under  the  general  tariff 
law  of  France,  to  the  value  of  the  articles ; in  other  words,  the  ad  valo- 
rem equivalents  of  the  specific  rates  as  applied  to  each  article  in  the 
schedule. 

If  it  is  not  practicable  to  obtain  this  as  to  all  of  the  articles  enumer- 
ated iu  the  French  tariff,  it  is  desirable  that  the  consul-general  shall 
make  proper  effort  to  secure  the  information  as  to  leading  staples,  par- 
ticularly with  regard  to  manufactures  of  cotton,  flax,  hemp,  jute,  metals, 
silk,  and  wool. 

It  is  also  requested  that  similar  information  be  obtained  and  for- 
warded by  the  consuls-general  at  Berlin,  Fraukfort-on-the-Main,  and 
Vienna,  in  regard  to  the  tariffs  of  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary. 

V ery  respectfully, 


D.  MANNING, 

Secretary. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington , October  31,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  inclose  herein  a copy  of  a dispatch  from  the 
consul-general  at  Paris,  under  date  of  the  10th  instant,  numbered  393, 
relating  to  the  imposition  of  specific  duties  under  the  general  tariff  law 
of  France,  which  formed  the  subject-matter  of  your  letter  of  the  13th 
of  June  last. 

The  original  tabular  reports  which  accompanied  the  dispatch  are  here- 
with inclosed. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

T.  F.  BAYARD. 


No.  393.]  United  States  Consulate-General, 

Paris , France , October  10,  1885. 

Hon.  James  D.  Porter, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  State , Washington,  D.  C.  : 

Sir:  I have  received  from  the  legation  of  the  United  States  a reply  to  the  request 
of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  letter  to  the  Department  of  State 
of  June  13  ultimo,  communicated  to  me  by  instruction  No.  179,  of  June  10,  for  cer- 
tain information  touching  the  imposition  of  specific  duties  under  the  general  tariff 
law  of  France. 

Fearing  that  this  information  might  fail  to  reach  me  in  time  to  be  useful  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  I had  caused  to  be  prepared  by  Mr.  Thirion,  one  of  the 
consular  clerks  attached  to  this  office,  who  has  a special  aptitude  for  such  work,  a 
full  and  tabular  report  on  the  subject  inquired  about,  and  I forward  the  same  with 
this  dispatch. 

I also  transmit  herewith  the  information  received  from  M.  de  Freycihet,  with  a 
translation  of  his  letter,  which  contains  statements  of  importance  on  the  same  sub- 
ject. A translation  of  the  tabular  report  sent  by  M.  de  Freycinet  is  also  inclosed. 

I am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  WALKER, 

Consul-General. 


S.  Ex.  72 38 


'594  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY 


M.  de  Freyoinet,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs , to  Mr.  McLane. 

[Translation.] 

Paris,  September  30,  1885. 

Sir  : On  the  6th  (lay  of  July  last  you  communicated  to  me  a wish  to  obtain  for  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  Washington  a table  showing  the  relation  now  existing 
between  the  specific  duties  levied  under  the  French  “general  tariff”  and  the  value  of 
the  merchandise  taxed. 

In  answer  to  an  inquiry  which  I caused  to  be  addressed  to  him  on  this  subject,  the 
Minister  of  Finance  has  sent  me  the  inclosed  table,  which  shows  the  proportion  asked 
for  in  respect  of  those  articles  which  your  letter  mentions  as  especially  interesting 
Mr.  Manning,  namely,  articles  composed  of  cotton,  flax,  hemp,  jute,  wool,  silk,  and 
the  metals. 

M.  Sadi-Carnot,  in  addressing  this  document  to  me,  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  table  indicates  that  the  proportional  duty  is  on  certain  articles  less  than  1 per 
cent. , and  that  it  in  no  case  exceeds  25  per  cent,  on  such  articles  as  are  taxed  most 
heavily,  and  that  this  latter  tax  is  only  imposed  in  exceptional  cases.  The  Finance 
Minister  adds  that  in  1883,  the  last  year  of  which  the  results  have  been  published,  the 
total  value  of  importations  into  France  of  manufactured  articles  amounted  to  768,000,000 
francs,  and  that  the  amount  of  duties  collected  on  them  was  50,000,000  francs.  The 
average  percentage  on  articles  under  this  category  is  therefore  6£  per  cent.  If  the 
calculations  were  made  on  the  entire  volume  of  French  imports  (excluding  colonial 
products,  on  which  the  charges  imposed  are  purely  fiscal)  instead  of  upon  these  se- 
lected articles,  the  proportion  would  be  still  smaller.  Upon  a volume  of  customs  duties 
exceeding  four  thousand  millions  of  francs,  one-half  the  total  amount  collected  reaches 
only  146,000,000,  or  3£  per  cent.  4 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

C.  de  FREYCINET. 


[Inclosure  with  Dispatch  Ho.  893.— Translation.] 

LNTTORMATION  TRANSMITTED  BY  THE  MINISTER  OF  FINANCES  OF  FRANCE. 


Relation  of  the  duties  levied,  under  the  general  tariff  of  France,  upon  manufactures  of  cotton , 
flax,  hemp,  jute,  wool , silk,  and  metals,  to  the  estimated  value  of  these  articles. 

YARNS  AND  THREADS. 


Simple:  Unbleached,  bleached,  dyed 12| 

Twisted:  Unbleached,  bleached,  dyed - 12-J 

Jute,  phormium  tenax,  and  other  vegetable  fibers 12$ 


COTTON. 


Simple : Unbleached,  bleached,  dyed 12| 

Twisted:  Unbleached,  bleached,  dyed 12$ 

Warps 12£ 

Mixed - - 12i 


WOOL. 

Simple:  Bleached  or  not,  dyed 

Twisted  for  wearing  and  for  tapestry : Bleached  or  not,  dyed 

Alpaca,  lama,  camel,  vicuna:  Pure  and  mixed 

Hair: 

Goat’s 

Other 

Yarn  of  silk  flock 

Yarn  of  waste  silk  flock .... 


6* 

6* 

6* 


2 

Free. 
7 i 
11 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


595 


FABRICS  OF  HEMP  OR  FLAX. 


Tissues,  uniform,  or  worked : Unbleached,  bleached,  dyed,  printed 

Linen,  damasked 

Oil-cloth 

Twills - 

Tissues,  mixed 

Table  linen,  damasked:  Unbleached,  creamed,  white,  or  mixed  with  white,  or 

colored  threads 

Handkerchiefs,  embroidered,  and  other  embroideries 

Cambrics  and  lawn 

Laces  and  linen  guipure 

Hosiery:  Trimmings  and  ribbons,  linen,  unbleached,  white,  dyed 


18$ 

20 

18$ 

20 

18$ 


20 

20 

18$ 

16 

18$ 


JUTE  FABRICS. 

Tissues  (pure  mixed),  bags,  carpets 

Tissues  of  phormium  tenax,  abaca,  and  other  vegetable  fibers 


SILK  FABRICS. 

Tissues  in  pure  silk 

Tissues  of  silk  mixed : 

With  gold  or  silver: 

Fine 

False 

With  other  materials : 

Plain 

Worked 

Silk  gauze  and  crape : 

Pure - 

Mixed 

Silk  tulle 

Laces : 

Silk 

Gold  and  silver,  fine  or  false 

Tissues  of  silk  flock  (including  foulards) : 

Pure  

Mixed 

Hosiery : 

Silk,  pure 

Flock  silk : 

Trimmings : 

Of  gold  or  silver: 

Fine 

False 

Of  silk : 

Pure 

Mixed „ 

Ribbons . 

Of  pure  silk : 

Velvet 

Other 

Of  silk,  mixed : 

Velvet 

Other 

Ribbons  of  silk  flock,  pure  or  mixed 


18$ 

18$ 


Free. 


15 

4 

5 

4 

Free. 

3 

Free. 

Free. 

3 

5 
9 

Free. 

3 


7 

18 

Free. 

9 


5$ 

6 

12 


WOOL  FABRICS. 

Blankets;  carpets,  all  kinds;  tapestries;  cloths,  cassimeres,  and  other  pressed 
goods ; merinos ; bolting-cloth,  seamless ; list  shoes ; stuffs,  various,  pure 
(including  moire),  for  furniture,  and  other ; shawls,  embossed  and  worked  ; 
laces;  hosiery;  trimmings  and  ribbons,  pure  wool  and  wool  mixed  with  other 

materials  ; caps,  fez ; red  caps 12$ 

Cloth  listings  . - Free. 

Stuffs,  wool,  mixed  with  other  materials,  for  furniture,  and  other 12$ 

Fabrics  of  alpaca,  vicuna,  llama,  pure  or  mixed 12$ 


596  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


HAIR  FABRICS. 

Fabrics  in  goat’s  hair,  pure  or  mixed : 

Cashmere  shawls,  and  other : 

Manufactured  out  of  Europe 5 

Manufactured  in  Europe 12| 

Other  fabrics  in  hair,  pure  or  mixed 12^ 

Fabrics  in  horse  hair  (trimmings  and  other),  pure  or  mixed 12} 


COTTON  FABRICS. 


Tissues,  calicoes,  twills;  unbleached  and  white,  dyed,  printed 18$ 

Oil-cloths,  moleskins,  for  packing  or  for  furniture 18$ 

Table-cloths,  in  pieces ; shawls  and  handkerchiefs 18$ 

Muslins  : Plain,  embroidered,  or  embossed,  for  furniture  or  dress  (including  cur- 
tains)   18$ 

Velvets  : Cotton  velvets;  others  (cords,  moleskins,  &c.) ■ 18$ 

Worked  piques,  reps,  damasks  and  brilliants;  covers  and  blankets;  embroid- 
eries, machine  or  hand 18$ 

Laces,  blonds,  and  guipure 6$ 

Tulle,  plain  or  embroidered ; tambourine  and  worked  gauze,  hosiery,  trim- 
mings and  ribbons,  mixed  fabrics,  Indian  guineu  ; other  fabrics  (lamp-wicks, 
heddles,  twisted  yarns  for  weavers’  looms,  &c.) 18f 


METAL  GOODS. 

Gold  and  silver  ware : 

Gold,  platinum,  and  other  precious  metals 1 

Silver 1$ 

Jewelry: 

Gold  or  platinum £ 

Silver - I 

Jewelry,  in  metals  other  than  gold,  platinum,  or  silver 2$ 

Works  gilded  or  silvered  by  plating,  mercury,  or  other  processes 4£ 

Watch  and  clock  makers’  work  : 

Watches,  in  gold  cases,  in  silver  or  in  other  metal  cases,  and  watch  move- 
ments   6$ 

Clocks,  musical  watches  and  clocks,  movement  of  clocks  and  time-pieces, 

counters,  pedometers,  &c 6$ 

Materials  of  watch-makers’  work 1 

Coins,  not  current  in  France Prohibited. 

Printing  types : 


New 

Old  and  out  of  use 

Cliches,  engraved  or  not 

Stereotypes  and  coins,  engraved 

Wire  cloth  and  gauze: 

Iron  or  steel 

Copper  or  brass 

Wire,  iron,  or  steel  work  in  meshes 

Needles  : 

Less  than  5 centimeters  in  length 

5 centimeters  or  more  in  length 

Knitting  needles,  crochets,  and  other  similar  objects,  steel,  iron,  or  copper 

Pins - 

Fish-hooks , 

Pens,  metallic  other  than  gold  and  silver 

Cutlery 

Cylinders,  copper,  engraved  or  not,  for  impressions 


2 

4 


i 


Free. 


4 

2i 

13 


17 

11 

8 

12 

5 

10 

18$ 

ft 


MACHINES  AND  MACHINERY. 

ihinery  complete: 

Steam  machinery. 

Stationary 6 

For  navigation 14 

Locomobiles  and  locomotives 5 

Steam  boilers:  sheet  iron,  tubular,  steel  sheet,  all  shapes 8 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


597 


Maeiiine  complete — Continued. 

Other  than  steam  machinery : 

For  spinning - 8 

For  cleaning,  scutching,  and  cutting  flax,  wool,  cotton,  and  other  text- 
ile substances 6 

For  weaving - 5 

Cards  not  furnished  with  teeth 8 

Bobbinet  machines 4 

Paper  making 4 

Printing 4 

Agricultural 4 

For  setting  sheets  and  fillet  cards 5 

Tenders  to  locomotives 7 

Gasometers,  open  boilers,  furnaces  and  stoves,  iron,  or  cast  or  sheet 

iron 9 

Apparatus  in  copper  for  sugar  for  heating  and  distilling (> 

Sewing-machines 

Machines,  tools,  and  machines  not  mentioned 7 

Detached  pieces  of  machinery : 

Sheets  and  fillets  for  cards 8 

Dents  or  teeth  of  reed,  combs,  and  mountings  for  looms  (iron  or  copper). . 10 

Other  separate  pieces : 

Cast  iron 7 

Iron 7 

Steel 10 

Copper 7 

TOOLS. 

Pure  iron 10 

Iron  and  steel 14 

Steel,  pure  (reaping  hooks,  files,  straight  or  circular  saws,  and  other  tools  n.  d.  6 
Copper  7 

WORKS  IN  METAL. 

Cast  iron,  molded : 

In  the  rough 18 

Polished  or  turned 15 

Tinned,  enameled,  or  varnished 14 

Malleable  cast  iron  articles 6^ 

Cast  iron  and  iron  : 

Not  polished 20 

Polished,  enameled,  or  varnished 15 

Iron : 

Tubes,  any  diameters,  straight  or  curved 25 

Ironmongery  22 

Locksmiths’  work 9 

Anchors,  cables,  chains 16 

Forged  nails,  wood  screws,  eyebolts,  ring  hooks 18 

Household  ware  and  other  articles  n.  d.,  of  iron  or  sheet  iron,  heavy  and 

other  10 

Steel  13 

Copper,  pure  or  alloyed  : 

Heavy  ware 5 

Works  of  art 1 

Other 4 

Zinc,  all  kind3 3 

Lead  (pipes  and  other  articles) 5 

Tin,  pure,  or  alloyed  with  antimony  (vessels,  pots,  and  other  wares) 3-£ 

Nickel,  alloyed  with  copper  or  zinc 11 

Statues,  of  metal,  life  size Free. 


598  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


(With  dispatch  No.  393,  October  10,  1885.) 

INCLOSURE  No.  1. 

I. — Tabular  statement  showing  the  specific  duties  levied  under  the  general  tariff  of  France.  The 

values  attributed  to  the  principal  articles  in  the  tariff  by  the  “Standing  committee  on  com- 
merce and  customs,”  and  the  computed  relation  of  the  specific  duties  to  the  value  of  the  articles. 

II.  — Index  to  the  same. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Unit. 


Duty. 


■S6 


o 

"A 


ANIMAL  MATTERS. 


«n 

H > 


1 


2 

3 


4 

5 


8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 


Live  animals. 

Horses : 

Stallions 

Geldings 

Mares 

Colts 

Mules 

Asses 


Frcs  Cts. 
1,  000.  00 
1, 600.  00 
1,  500.  00 
450.  00 
500.  00 
150.  00 


Per  head 

do  ... 

do  ... 

....do  ... 
....do  ... 
do  . . . 


Cattle: 

Oxen 

Cows 

Bulls 

Steers,  bullocks,  and  heifers 

Calves 

Bams,  ewes,  wethers 

Lambs 

Goats,  kids 

Pigs 

Sucking  pigs 

Game,  poultry,  turtles 

Animals,  not  specified 


460. 00 

305. 00 

315. 00 

160. 00 
90.  00 
50.  00 
18. 00 
20. 00 

115.  00 
16.  00 
200.  00 


do 

....do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Per  100  kilos . 


do 


Frcs.  Cts. 

30.00 
30.  00 
30.  00 

18. 00 
5. 00 

■ee 

Pr.  ct. 

3.0 

2.0 
2.0 

4.0 

1.0 

25.00 

5.5 

12.  00 

4.0 

12. 00 

4.0 

8.  00 

5.0 

4.  00 

4.4 

3.  00 

6.0 

1.00 

5.5 

1.00 

5.0 

6.  00 

5.2 

4. 00 

2.6 

20.00 

10.0 

Free 


Produce , skins,  <£c.,  of  animals. 


16 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21  ; 
22 
21 
24 


25 


27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 


37 

38 

39 

40 

41 


Meat,  fresh,  butcher’s 

Meat,  fresh  game,  poultry,  and  turtle 

Meats,  salted 

Meats,  preservad  in  cans 

Meats,  extracts  of 

Hides,  raw,  green,  or  dried 

Peltries,  undressed 

W ool  and  woolen  waste 

Horse  hair,  raw,  prepared  or  curled 

Hair : 

Animal,  raw 

Combed,  goats’ 

Combed,  other  kinds  (rabbit,  castor,  2, 

musk-rat). 

In  hanks  of  assorted  lengths  (bristles) . 

Feathers,  ornamental,  dressed  or  un-  

dressed. 

Quills  (for  writing,  &£.),  prepared  or  not 

Feathers,  bed,  all  kinds,  including  down . . 1, 

Silk  in  cocoons,  raw  and  milled,  dyed,  sew-  

ing,  embroidery,  or  other. 

Silk,  flock  combed 2, 

Hair,  human,  not  manufactured 

Byssus  of  piuna  marina  

Messina  hair  ( silk  gut  used  for  fishing  lines) 

Animal  fat,  except  fish  oil 

Waste  of  fish  oil  and  alkalies  from  the  pro-  

cess  of  manufacturing  chamois  leather. 

Beeswax,  raw,  yellow,  brown,  or  white  ... 

Beeswax,  waste  of 

Eggs  of  poultry  and  game 

Ejjgs,  silkworm  ., 

Cheese,  soft  

Cheese,  hard 

Butter,  fresh  or  melted .x 

Butter,  salted 

Honey 

Manure 

Bones,  calcined 

Bone-black  

Animal  sinews,  ears,  &c 

Other  raw  products  and  integuments  of  

animals. 


1. 60 
2. 32 
1. 20 
2.10 
2. 10 


275.00 

000. 00 


do 

do 

do 

do 

.do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 


700.00  ....do 

do 

do 

000.00  ...  do 

do 


100. 00 


.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

do 

do 


320.  00 
140."  66 


150.  00 
165.  00 
275.  00 
225.  00 
140.  00 


...do 
...do 
. . .do 
. . do 
...do 
. . .do 
. . do 
...  do 
. . .do 
. . do 
. . .do 
. . .do 
. . .do 
...do 
. . do 


7. 00 
20.  00 

8.00 
8. 00 
4.00 

Free  

4.4 
8.3 

6.5 
3.8 
2.0 

Free  . . 

Free 

Free 

Frefi  

10.  00 
10.  00 

10.  00 
Free  

3.6 

0.5 

1.4 

Free 

20. 00 
Free 

2.0 

10.  00 

Free 

0.5 

Free 

Free 

Freft  . 

Fre.fi 

10.  00 
Frflfi 

3.0 

10.  00 

Free 

7.0 

Free 

6.  00 
8.  00 
13.  00 
15.  00 
10.  00 
Free 

4.0 

5.0 
4.8 
6.6 

7.0 

Free 

Free 

Free 

Free 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


599 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


TS 

«§ 

II 

w * 


45 


47 


67 


79 


FISH. 


Produces  of  French  fisheries 

Fish,  fresh,  sea 

Fish,  fresh  water 

Fish,  dried,  salted,  smoked,  cod,  stock,  or 
klipp-fish. 

Fish,  others,  dried,  salted,  or  smoked 

Fish,  preserved  in  oil,  or  pickled 

Oysters,  fresh,  young 

Oysters,  fresh,  "other 

Oysters,  pickled 

Lobsters,  fresh 

Lobsters,  preserved  or  prepared 

Mussels  and  other  shell  fish 

Fish  oil 

Whale  oil,  spermaceti,  crude 

Spermaceti,  pressed 

Spermaceti,  refined 

Parings,  cod  and  mackerel 

Whalebone,  uncut 

Seal-skins,  raw 

Coral,  rough,  uncut 

Pearls,  fine  (natural) 

Fish  bladders,  raw  or  simply  dried 


Fret. 


Ots. 


95.00 

98.00 

60. 00 

155.00 
240.  00 


60.  00 
275.  00 
325.  00 
240.  00 


100.  00 

96.00 


220.  00 

30.  00 


RAW  MATERIALS  OF  MEDICINES  AND  PER- 
FUMERY. 


Sponges,  raw 

Sponges,  prepared,  fine 

Other  raw  natural  products  for  medicine 
and  perfumery. 

HARD  SUBSTANCES  FOR  CARVING. 


1,  600.  00 
1,  600.  00 


Elephants’  teeth  and  tusks 

Turtle  shell,  carapaces,  &c 

Ivory  and  shell,  imitations 

jSTacreous  shells,  mother  of  pearl,  rough  .. 
Haliotis,  ear-shells,  and  others  for  working. 

Bones,  hoofs  of  cattle,  raw 

Horns  of  cattle,  raw 

Homs,  prepared 

Horns,  in  sheets 


1, 200. 00 


225. 00 

2, 200.  00 


VEGETABLE  SUBSTANCES. 
Farinaceous  food. 

Wheat,  spelt,  maslin  (wheat  and  rye)  in 
the  grain. 

Wheat,  and  wheat  and  rye  meal 

Rye,  maize,  barley,  buckwheat,  oats  (grain 
or  meal). 

Bread  and  ship’s  biscuit 

Oatmeal,  semoule  (meals),  pearl  or  hulled 
grains. 

Semoules,  in  paste  (Italian  paste) 

Sago,  salep,  and  exotic  fecula 

Rice,  grains  or  in  the  husk 

Rice,  cracked 

Dried  leguminous  plants  and  their  flour 

Chestnuts  and  their  flour 

Millet  grain  and  meal 

Potatoes 


Fruits  and  seed. 

Fresh  fruit : 

Lemons,  oranges,  and  their  varieties . 

Carob  beans 

Other  

Bry  fruit: 

Dry  figs 

Raisins,  apples,  and  pears 

Almonds  and  nuts 

Others  


25.00 
13.  00 


40.  00 
50.  00 
115.  00 
40.00 


Per  100  kilos. 

...do 

...do 

...  do 


....do 

do 

Per  thousand 

do 

Per  100  kilos. 
do 


Frc8. 
Free . 


Free 


do 

....do 
do 

— do 
....do 

do 

do 

— do 

do 

do 

— do 
do 


Free . 


Free 

Free 

Free 

Free 

Free 


Per  100  kilos 

....do 

do 


Free 


Per  100  kilos 

...do 

...do 

...do 

. . do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

do 


Free . 
Free 

Free . 
Free 
Free . 
Free . 


Per  100  kilos  . 


.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


Free . 
Free . 
Free . 
Free . 
Free . 
Free . 


Per  100  kilos. 

do 

.do 


Free . 


....do 
....do 
do 

.do 


Ots. 


5.00 
5.00 
48.  00 

10.  00 
10.00 


1.50 
10.  00 
5.  00 
10.  00 


6.00 
5.  00 
10.  00 
15.00 
0.  60 


35.  00 
65.00 


75,  00 


3.  00 
3.  00 


3.  00 


6.00 

1.50 


1. 20 
1. 20 


6.00 
6.  00 


4.  50 
0.  30 


Pr.  ct. 


6.  00 
6.  60 
6.  00 
8.00  I 


5.2 

5.1 

8.0 


4.0 


2.5 


1.5 

4.0 


6.0 

5.2 


6.8 

2.0 


2.2 

4.1 


1.1 

0.1 


18.0 

2.3 


15.0 

12.0 

5.2 

20.0 


600  REPORT  OE  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


6 

6 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


a © 
P f-t 

1! 


VEGETABLE  substances— continued. 


81 

82 

83 

84 


Fruits  and  seed— Continued. 


Frcs. 


Fruits,  preserved  in  candy 

Fruits,  preservedjn  sugar  or  honey... 

Fruits,  pickled  or  preserved,  other 

A nise  seed 

Juniper,  laurel  berries,  figs  of  the  cac- 
tus 

Oil  fruits  and  seeds 

Seeds  for  sowing 


Cts. 
250.  00 
250.  00 
100.  00 
60.  00 


Per  100  kilos . 

do 

do 

do 


do 

do 


do 


Frcs. 


Free 


Cts. 
*40.  00 
52.  50 
8.  00 
2.  00 


Pr.  cl. 
16.0 
21.0 
8.0 
3.2 


Free 

Free 


86 

87 


88 

89 

90 

91 


92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 
100 


Colonial  produce. 

Sugar: 

Refined,  other  than  candies 

Refined  candies 

Molasses,  for  distillation 

Other  than  for  distillation,  containing, 
in  absolute  saccharine  richness 
50  per  cent,  or  less. 

Containing  more  than  50  per  cent 

Sirups  and  confectionery 

Biscuits,  sweet 

Preserves,  sugar  or  honey 

Without  sugar  or  honey 

Chocolate -. 

Coffee,  berries,  crude 

Roasted  or  milled 

Cocoa,  in  beans 

Crushed,  in  paste,  tablets,  or  powder  . 

Butter  of 

Pepper  and  pimento 

Ainomum  and  cardamons 

Cornel 

Nutmegs,  in  the  shell 

Out  of  the  shell 

Mace . . : 

Cloves 

Vanilla 

Tea 

Tobacco,  leaves  or  stalks : 

Imported  for  the  .account  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. 

Imported  for  the  account  of  private 
parties. 

Tobacco  manufactured  for  the  account  of 
the  Government. 

Manufactured  tobacco  imported  for  the 
use  of  private  parties  under 
special  authorization  from  the 
tobacco  administration.  (This 
authorization  is  limited  to  10 
kilograms  per  annum  for  any 
one  person.) 

Cigars  and  cigarettes 

Snuff  and  chewing  tobacco 

Smoking -tobacco  from  the  Levant 

Smoking  tobacco  of  all  other  sources . . 


63.00  ....do 

90.00  ....do 

do 

do 


250. 00 

200. 00 
200.  00 
100.  00 


.do 

.do 

do 

.do 

do 


do 


134. 00 


do 


172. 00 


...do 

...do 


172.  00 
190.  00 
600. 00 
200.  00 
300.  00 
525.  00 
415. 00 
200.  00 
4,  500.  00 
490.  00 


..do 
..do 
. .do 
. .do 
..do 
. .do 
. .do 
..do 
..do 
. .do 
. do 


do 

.do 

do 


do 

do 

do 

.do 


52.  50 
56.50 

Free 

12.  00 


25.50 
52.  50 
26.25 
26.25 
12.  00 


19.0 

13.0 

13.0 

12.0 


156.  00 
208.  00 
104.  00 
135.  00 
135.  00 
208. 00 
208. 00 
208.  00 
208.  00 
312.  00 
312.  00 
208.  00 
416.  00 
208.  00 


118.0 


78.0 
110.0 

35.0 
104.0 

70.0 

60.0 

75.0 
104.0 

9.2 

43.0 


Free 

Prohibited. 
Free 


3. 600.  00 

1,  500. 00 

2,  500.  00 
1,  500.  00 


OILS  AND  VEGETABLE  EXTRACTS. 


101 

102 

103 

104 
100 


Oil,  olive,  fixed,  pure 

Oil,  cocoanut,  palm,  touloucouna,  illipe 

Oils,  others 

Oil,  fixed,  aromatic 

Oils,  volatile,  or  essences  of  rose  or  rose- 
wood. 

Oils  of  orange,  lemon,  and  their  varieties. . 

Oils,  all  other.... 

Gums 

European  resins  and  other  resinous  prod- 
ucts. 


105. 00 
88.  00 
78.00 
1,  000.  00 
120,  000.  00 


..do 
...do 
...do 
. . .do 
..do 


2, 400.  00 

2,  000. 00 


250.  00 


...do  

. . do 

. ..do 

..do 


Essence  of  turpentine 


99. 00 


.do 


* Not  including  internal  tax  on  spirits. 


4.  50 

4.5 

1.  00 

1.1 

6. 00 

7.7 

80.  00 

8.0 

4,  000.  00 

3.3 

150.  00 

6.4 

100.  00 

5.0 

2.00 

8.0 

5.00 

5.0 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


601 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuations. 


Unit. 


Duty. 


oils  and  vegetable  extracts— continued. 


107 

108 
108 

109 

110 
111 
112 

113 

114 

115 


Frcs. 


Balsams 

Camphor,  raw 

Camphor,  refined 

Caoutchouc  and  gutta-percha,  crude 

Glue  (bird  lime) 

Manna 

Aloes . 

Opium 

Licorice  juice 

Other  dried  vegetable  juices 


116 


117 


118 


119 

120 
121 
122 

123 

124 

125 

126 
127 


128 

129 

130 


131 


132 


133 

134 


135 


MEDICINAL  PLANTS  AND  FRUITS. 

Boots : 

Ipeca 

Bhubarb 

Sarsaparilla 

Jalep 

Licorice 

Other,  including  iris  and  ginger 

Barks : 

Lemon,  orange 

Lima 

Other 

Herbs : 

Absinth 

Other 

Leaves : 

Slune 

Others.... 

Blowers,  medicinal 

Fruits : 

Cassia  and  tamarind,  not  comfits  in 
sugar. 

Other,  not  comfit  in  sugar 

Lichens,  other  than  for  dyeing 

WOOD. 

Woods,  common,  building  wood,  oak,  elm, 
walnut,  sawed  or  otherwise,  and  other 
wood  of  all  dimensions. 

Wood,  masts,  materials,  spars,  handles, 
oars,  &c. 

Staves 

Wood,  split,  splints  

Wood,  hop-poles 

W ood,  stuffs  and  props 

Wood,  cork 

Wood,  fire,  charcoal,  and  kindling 

Wood,  other  common 

Wood  for  cabinet  work,  logs  or  sawed, 
more  than  two  decimeters  thick,  and  ma- 
hogany, box- wood,  and  others. 

Wood,  cabinetwork,  two  decimeters  thick 
or  under. 

Wood,  odoriferous 

Woods,  dye,  in  logs 

Woods,  dye,  ground 


FIBERS.  STEMS,  AND  FRUIT  FOR  MANUFACT- 
URES. 


Cts. 
800.  00 
2*)0.  00 
260.  00 


500.  00 
130.  00 
3,  500.  00 
180.  00 


Cottonf^aw 

Cotton  wadding  (cotton  in  sheets,  carded 
and  gummed). 

Flax  and  hemp,  raw,  peeled,  hackled,  or  in 
tow. 

Jute,  raw,  peeled,  twisted,  or  biaked  (a) . 

Phormium  tonax.  abaca  (rnauila  hemp) 
and  vegetable  fibers  not  specified,  raw, 
braked,  hards,  or  com  bed)  (a). 

Canes  and  reeds,  unman ufactored , 


900. 00 
350.  00 
100.  00 
275.  00 
30.  00 
150.  00 

80.  00 
700.  00 
100.  00 

70.  00 
150.  00 

120.  00 
100.  00 
100.  00 

65.00 

300.  00 
50.  00 


30.  00 


180.  00 


Per  100  kilos. 

. do 

. .do 

. do 

..do 

..do 

..do 

. .do 

. . do 

. do 


Frcs. 


Free 

Free 


Free 


.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

do 

.do 

.do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

do 

do 

do 


Cts. 

Pr.  ct. 

10.  00 

1.2 

2 00 

1.0 

4.  00 

1.4 

8.  00 

1.6 

6.  00 

4.6 

240.  00 

7.0 

10.  00 

5.5 

2. 00 

0.2 

2.  00 

0.6 

2.  00 

1.0 

2.  00 

0.8 

2.00 

6.  6 

2.  00 

1.3 

2.  00 

2.5 

2.  00 

0.3 

2.  00 

1.0 

2.  00 

2.3 

2.  00 

1.3 

2.  00 

1.7 

2.  00 

2.0 

2.  00 

2.0 

2.  00 

3.0 

6.00 

3.0 

2.  00 

4.0 

.do 


.do 


...do 

Per  thousand 

...  do 

. . do 

Per  100  kilos  . 

...  do 

...do  — 

. . .do 


Free . 


Free . 

Free . 

Free. 

Free . 
Free . 
Free . 
Free . 


Free. 
Free . 
Free . 


...do 

...do 


Free . 


.do 


Free . 


Free . 
Free. 


0. 10 
'6.' 25 


1.00 


10.00 


Free. 


5.5 


Estimated  ad 
valor  em  duty. 


602  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


No.  of  article*.  J 

Articles. 

Customs 

valuation. 

Units. 

Duty. 

Estimated  ad 
valorem  duty. 

FIBERS,  STEMS,  AND  FRUIT  FOR  MANUFACT- 

URERS — continued. 

Fret.  Ota. 

Fret.  Ots. 

Pr.  ot. 

136 

Per  100  kilos. 

Free 

137 

do 

Free 

seeds  for  carving. 

DYES  AND  TANNINS. 

138 

....  do 

Free 

139 

do  . . 

Free 

140 

....do 

Free 

141 

do 

Free 

142 

Free 

143 

do 

Free 

144 

....do 

Free 

145 

do 

Free 

and  fruits,  for  dyeing  or  tanning. 

SUNDRY  PRODUCTS  AND  WASTE. 

146 

....do 

Free 

Vegetables,  salted,  preserved,  or  pickled.. 

100. 00 

do 

3.  00 

8.0 

147 

3, 000. 00 

do 

200. 00 

6.6 

148 

Hops r 

500.  00 

...do 

15.00 

3.0 

149 

100. 00 

do 

3. 00 

8.0 

150 

do 

Free 

151 

do 

25 

38. 00 

do 

1.00 

2.6 

152 

i Fodder,  including  vetch 

....do 

Free 

153 

: Bran  of  all  kinds 

do 

Free Jfl 

154 

Oil-cakes  of  linseed 

do 

Free 



155 

Bags  and  drills 

. . . .do 

Free 

156 

Tnrf  and  peat,  for  burning 

....do  

Free 

157 

1 Other  vegetable  products  and  waste,  not 

....do 

Free 

denominated. 

MINERAL  SUBSTANCES. 

158 

Marble : 

White  statuary,  rough,  quarried,  or 

do 

Free 

sawed  only. 

Other,  rough  or  quarried 

do 

Free 

Other,  at  16  centimeters  or  above  in 

....do 

Free 

thickness,  sawed. 

Other,  sawed,  of  less  than  16  centime- 

15.00 

do 

2. 50 

1.T 

ters  in  thickness. 

158 

Marble,  sculptured,  polished,  or  otherwise 

worked: 

Sculptured,  modem  statuary 

100. 00 

do  

10.00 

10.0 

Sculptured,  clocks,  cups,  inkstands, 

100.00 

do 

15.00 

15.0 

playing  marbles. 

Sculptured,  polished,  or  otherwise 

95.00 

do 

6.00 

6.4 

worked,  other. 

160 

Alabaster,  rough,  quarried  or  sawed,  16 

. . do  

Free 

centimeters  thick  or  over. 

Alabaster,  sawed,  less  than  16  centimeters 

40.00 

....do 

2.50 

6.2 

thick. 

Alabaster,  sculptured  or  otherwise  worked, 

do 

10.00 

modern  statuary. 

Alabaster,  sculptured  or  otherwise  worked, 

300.00 

do 

6. 00 

2.0 

others. 

161 

Precious  stones,  rough  or  cut 

do 

Free 

162 

Agates  or  other  similar  stones: 

Bough 

Free 

Worked 

150. 00 

...do 

45.00 

32.0 

163 

Bock  crystal,  rough  or  worked 

do 

Free 

164 

Stones,  worked,  including  building  stone 

do 

Free 

and  slates,  shaped  or  sawed. 

• 

Stones,  sculptured  or  polished: 

Lithographic  stones,  engraved,  de- 

 do  _ . . . . 

Free 

signed. 

Modem  statuary 

10. 00 

Playing-marbles,  to  vs 

45.  00 

do 

15.  00 

Slates,  framed  or  unframed,  for  writing. 

ll!  00 

do 

8. 75 

33.0 

Others 

75.  00 

— do 

3. 00 

4.0 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


603 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


No.  of  articles.  I 

Articles. 

Customs 

valuation. 

Units. 

Duty. 

Estimated  ad 
valorem  duty. 

MINERAL  SUBSTANCES— continued. 

Free.  Ots. 

Free.  Ots. 

Pr.  ct. 

165 

....do 

Free 

166 

do 

Free 

manufactures. 

167 

do 

Free 

Slates  for  roofing; 

3.  00 

Per  thousand. 

4.  00 

1.3 

168 

Bricks  and  tiles  for  paving  and  roofing  . . . 

3.  00 

do 

1.00 

0.3 

3.  00 

do  

1.00 

0.3 

169 

Per  100  kilos. 

Free 

170 

do 

Free 

171 

do 

Free 

172 

Free 

173 

Marl 

do 

Free 

174 

do 

Free 

do 

Free 

175 

do 

Free . . 

24.00 

do 

0. 12 

10.  00 

do 

0.  012 

176 

Per  100  kilos 

Free  

177 

do 

Free  . . 

* 

178 

...  do  

Free 

179 

Jet 

do 

Free  

180 

Amber,  yellow 

....do  

Free 

181 

Petroleum  and  other  mineral  oils  for  illu- 

minating: 

18. 00 

do 

18.  00 

100. 0 

Refined  

20. 00 

do 

25. 00 

124.’  0 

METALS. 

182 

Gold  and  platinum  ore 

do 

Free 

Gold  and  platinum,  crude,  in  lumps,  in- 

90, 000. 00 

do 

10. 00 

gots,  bars,  dust,  and  broken  ornaments. 

Gold  leaf 

320,  000.  00 

do 

2, 500. 00 

0. 8 

Gold,  drawn,  rolled 

300,  COO.  00 

do 

500. 00 

o!  2 

Gold  wire 

50,  000.  00 

do 

500.  00 

0.1 

183 

Silver  ore 

do 

Free 

Silver,  crude,  in  lumps,  ingots,  bars,  dust, 

do  . . 

1.  00 

and  broken  ornaments. 

Silver  leaf 

do 

9,  000. 00 

Silver,  drawn,  rolled,  or  wire 

15,  000.  00 

do 

500.  00 

3.5 

184 

Goldsmith’s  dross 

Free . 

185 

Aluminium 

500.00 

186 

Iron  ore 

do 

FYee 

187 

Cast  iron,  rough,  pig  iron  for  ballast 

7.00 

...do 

2.  00 

28.0 

188 

Iron : 

In  masses  or  prisms  containing  slags 

17.00 

do 

4.  50 

26.0 

(at  least  6 per  cent.). 

189 

Drawn,  in  bars,  angle  and  T-rails  of 

15.00 

do 

6.00 

40.0 

every  dimension. 

(Pig  iron,  in  bars,  containing  6 per  cent. 

or  more  of  slags,  shall  pay  the  same  duty 

as  imposed  upon  prisms  still  containing 

- 

slags.) 

190 

Iron,  plate  or  hoop,  more  than  a millimeter 

15.  00 

do 

6.00 

40.0 

thick. 

Iron,  sheets  and  plates,  millimeter  thick 

22.  00 

do 

7.50 

34.0 

and  less. 

191 

Iron,  for  wire  manufacture 

15.00 

per  100  kilos. 

6. 00 

40.0 

192 

Iron,  sheet,  smooth  or  hammered,  more 

23. 00 

....do 

7.50 

32.5 

than  1 millimeter  thick,  not  cut. 

Iron,  sheet,  smooth  or  hammered,  more 

20.  00 

....do 

8. 00 

40.0 

than  1 millimeter  thick,  cut  in  whatever 

manner. 

Iron,  sheet,  thin  and  black  rolled  iron 

20.  00 

....do 

10. 00 

60.0 

plate,  1 millimeter  thick  or  less,  not  cut 

to  any  shape. 

Iron,  sheet,  thin  and  black  rolled  iron 

20.  00 

do 

11. 00 

55.0 

plate,  1 millimeter  thick  or  less,  cut  to 

any  shape. 

193 

Iron,  tinned,  galvanized,  or  coated  with 

52.00 

....do 

18.00 

25.0 

copper,  zinc,  or  lead. 

194 

Iron  wire,  coated  or  not,  & of  a millimeter 

33. 00 

....do 

10. 00 

30.0 

thick,  or  less. 

CM  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


No.  of  articles. 

Articles. 

Customs 

valuation. 

Units. 

Duty. 

Estimated  ad 
valorem  duty. 

metals — continued. 

Frcs.  Cts. 

Frcs.  Cts.  j 

Pr.  ct. 

Iron  wire,  coated  or  not,  of  a millimeter 

33. 00 

do 

6.00 

18.0 

thick,  or  over. 

195 

14. 00 

do 

6.  00 

43.  0 

43.  00 

do 

9.00 

21.  0 

196 

Steel,  crown,  in  sheets  or  coils,  rolled  hot, 

of  more  than  millimeter  in  thickness : 

48. 00 

do 

9.  00 

19.  0 

48.  00 

do 

9.90 

20.  0 

Steel,  crown,  in  sheets  or  coils,  rolled  hot, 

ot  % millimeter  or  less  in  thickness : 

52.  00 

do 

15.  00 

29.0 

52.  00 

do 

16.  50 

32.  0 

Steel,  in  sheets  or  coils,  white,  rolled  cold, 

52.  00 

...do  

15.  00 

29.  0 

of  any  thickness,  not  cut  to  any  shape. 

The  same,  cut  to  any  shape  

52.  00 

....do 

16.50 

31.0 

197 

Steel  wire,  white,  for  strings  of  instruments 

200.  00 

do 

20.  00 

10.  0 

198 

. . do 

Free 

1 

199 

Scrap  iron  of  wrought  or  cast  iron 

9.  00 

— do 

2.00 

22.0 

200 

do 

Free 

201 

...  do  

Free 

...do  

Free 

first  melting,  in  lumps,  bars,  pigs,  or 

1 

sheets. 

201 

Copper,  pure  or  alloyed  with  zinc  or  tin : 

Rolled  or  hammered,  in  bars  or  plates. 

169.  00 

do 

10.  00 

6.0 

Wires,  of  whatever  size,  polished  or 

169.  00 

....do  

10.  00 

6.0 

not,  cut,  neither  gilt  nor  silvered. 

Copper,  gilt  or  silvered,  in  lumps  or 

1,  200.  00 

--•do 

100.  00 

8.4 

ingots,  tilted,  drawn,  rolled,  or  spun 

on  yarn  or  silk. 

202 

Lead,  ore,  and  slag  of  all  kinds  in  crude 

do 

Free 

lumps,  pigs,  bars,  or  sheets. 

. | 

Lead,  alloyed  with  antimony,  in  lumps 

30.  00 

...do  

3.  CO 

10.0 

Lead,  hammered  or  rolled 

36.  00 

...  do 

3.  00 

8.  4 

Lead-filings  and  scrap-lead 

. . do 

Free 

203  j 

Tin  ore,  in  lumps,  blocks,  and  plates 

_ _ do 

Free 

Tin,  alloyed  with  antimony,  in  ingots 

257.  00 

do 

5.00 

1.  9 

Tin.  alloyed,  hammered  or  rolled 

340.  00 

do 

6.  00 

1.8 

Tiu-filings  and  scrap-tin  

do 

Free 

204  j 

Zinc,  ore,  crude,  calcined,  or  pulverized... 



do  

Free 

Znm,  in  crude  lumps,  block-tin,  bars,  or 

. . do 

Free 

sheets. 

Zincv  rolled 

40.  00 

do 

4.00 

10.0 

Zinc-filings  and  old  scrap-zinc 

do 

Free 

205 

Nickel,  me;  regulus  speiss 

do 

Free 

Nickel,  pure  or  alloyed  with  other  metals: 

In  inp'ots  or  crude  lumps __ 

do 

Free 

Rolled  or  drawn . . 

1, 100.  00 

do 

10. 00 

9. 1 

206 

Meicury,  native 

..  do 

Free 

207 

i Antimony,  ore,  or  smelted 

. _ do 

Free 

j Antimony,  metallic,  regulus 

115.  00 

. . do 

6. 00 

5.2 

208 

Arsenic,  ore  or  metallic  

do 

Free 

209 

Cadmium,  crude 

do 

Free 

210 

1 Bismuth 

...  do 

Free 

211 

Manganese  ore 

Free 

212 

1 Cobalt,  vitrified,  in  lumps  or  powders 

do 

Free 

213 

1 Other  ores,  not  denominated  

.do 

Free 

CHEMICALS. 

214 

Bromide  and  bromide  of  potassium 

400.  00 

Per  100  kilos. 

100.  00 

25.0 

215 

Iodine,  crude  or  refined 

200.  00 

....  do 

400.  00 

20.  0 

210 

i Iodide  of  potassium 

1,  800.  00 

. . . do 

350.  00 

2 0 

217 

Phosphorus,  white  

575.  00 

_ do 

50.  00 

8.  7 

Phosphorus,  red 

1,  000.  00 

do 

149.  00 

14  9 

218 

Acids: 

Arsenious  

Free 

Benzoic 

2,  500.  00 

do 

124. 00 

5.  0 

Boracic 

. . do 

Free 

Hydrochloric t 

4.  00 

do 

*0. 37 

9.0 

Citric  (juice  of  lemon,  natural  or  con- 

do . . . 

Free 

centrated,  up  to  10°,  inclusive). 

Citric,  from  10°  to  35° 

150.  00 

....  do 

6.00 

4.0 

Citric,  above  35° 

350.00 

....do 

1100 

4,3 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


605 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


| No.  of  articles.! 

Articles. 

Customs 

valuation. 

Units. 

Duty. 

Estimated  ad 
valorem  duty. 

chemicals— continued. 

Acids : 

Frcs.  Gts. 

Frcs.  Gts. 

Pr.  cl. 

500. 00 

do 

50.00 

10.  0 

Gallic  (extract  of  chestnut  and  other 

35.  00 

do 

1.20 

3.4 

tannic  juices,  liquid  or  concrete, 

from  vegetables). 

600.  00 

do 

93.  00 

15.4 

42.  00 

do 

2.  50 

6.  0 

65.  00 

do 

5.  00 

7.  7 

140.  00 

do 

12.  50 

9.  0 

50.  00 

do 

20.  00 

40.  0 

145.  00 

do I . 

10.  00 

7.  0 

do 

Free 

415.  00 

do 

10. 00 

2.4 

219 

Oxides : 

... .do  

Free 

do 

Free 

Tin  r 

do 

Free . . 

do 

Free 

40.  00 

do 

2.  00 

5.0 

do 

Free 

do 

Free . . . 

do 

Free 

220 

do 

Free 

221 

do 

Free 

222 

Ashes  of  beet-root  (dry) 

...  do 

aO.  13 

223 

Soda  of  varec  (see  wrack) 

do 

«0. 19 

224 

Soda,  caustic 

24.  00 

do 

a8.  00 

83.  5 

225 

Soda,  natural  or  artificial  (carbonate  of 

soda)  i 

Crude,  30°  or  more 

8.  00 

....do 

u2.  30 

29.  0 

Crude,  less  than  30° 

8.  00 

do 

al.  25 

90.  0 

Refined,  soda  salt,  60°  or  more 

18.  00 

....  do  ... 

a, 5.  00 

28.  0 

Refined,  soda  salt,  less  than  60° 

18.  00 

. . do  . . . 

al7.  50 

98.  0 

Refined,  crystallized  (soda  crystals)  . . . 

8.  00 

do 

a2.  30 

30.0 

226 

Natron 

8.  00 

do 

2. 30 

30.  0 

227 

Bicarbonate  of  soda 

29.  00 

...  do  . 

a5. 20 

18.  0 

228 

Soda  salts  not  mentioned  

20.  00 

. do  . 

4.  35 

21.5 

229 

Sea  salt,  brine  salt,  rock  salt: 

Crude  or  refined,  other  than  white 

....do 

62.  60 

White,  refined 

- . do 

64.  00 

2291 

Sal  ammonia,  crude 

48.  00 

do 

a8.  00 

17.  0 

Sal  ammonia,  refined 

130.  00 

do  . . . 

al2. 00 

9.0 

Sulphate  ammonia,  crude 

Free 

Sulphate  ammonia,  refined 

130.  00 

do 

7.  75 

6.  0 

Other  salts  ammonia,  crude 

58.  00 

. . do 

3.  00 

5 4 

Other  salts  ammonia,  refined 

130.  00 

. do  . 

7.  75 

6.0 

230 

Salts  of  cobalt 

Free 

231 

•Salts  of  silver 

1, 400.  00 

do  . . . 

930.  00 

67.  0 

232 

Salts  of  tin „ 

170.  00 

. do 

10.  00 

6.0 

233 

Acetates : 

Of  copper,  crude 

50.  00 

do 

10.  00 

20.  0 

Of  copper,  refined  powder 

50.  00 

do  

14.  50 

29.  0 

Of  copper,  refined  crystals 

50.  00 

. do 

21.  00 

42.0 

of  iron,  liquid 

Per  100  kilos . 

Free 

of  iron,  concentrated 

70.  00 

do 

10.  00 

14.  0 

of  lead  (sugar  of  lead} 

70.  00 

do 

5.  50 

9.  0 

of  potash 

90.  00 

do 

22.  00 

24.  0 

of  soda,  anhydrous 

60.  00 

. . .do  . _ 

u5.  00 

9.  0 

of  soda,  crystallized  or  hvdrate 

60.  00 

do 

a4. 75 

8.0 

234 

Alcohol,  amylic ." 

6. 25 

Alcohol,  methylic 

65.  00 

do 

9.  25 

14.0 

235 

Aluminate  of  soda ..  

&13.  50 

236  1 Alum  of  ammoniac  or  of  potash,  and  sul- 

50.  00 

do 

1.  50 

3.0 

phate  of  alumine. 

237 

Ammoniac  (volatile  alkali) 

52.  00 

do 

3.  00 

6.  0 

238 

Arsenate  of  potash 

90.  00 

do 

8.  75 

10.  0 

238 

Arsenate  of  soda 

50.  00 

do 

4’  25 

8.  0 

239 

Borax,  crude,  native,  or  artificial 

120.  00 

. . . .do 

8.  75 

7. 3 

239 

Borax,  half  refined  or  refined 

150.  00 

....do 

10.  00 

6.8 

a Including  tlie  cost  of  superintendence  of  the  manufacture  of  soda. 
6 These  duties  do  not  include  the  inland  consumption  tax. 


606  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Inolosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


240 

241 

242 

243 
243 
243 
243 

243 

244 

245 

246 


247 

248 

249 
.250 

251 


252 


Articles. 


mechanical — continued. 


253 

254 

255 


256  ; 


257 


258 


Carbonate  of  magnesia 

Carbonate  of  lead 

Citrate  of  lime 

Chlorate  of  potash,  soda  (A),  and  others  .. 

Chloride  of  aluminium 

Chloride  double  of  aluminium  and  sodium. 

Chloride  of  lime 

Chloride  of  magnesium 

Chloride  of  potash 

Chromate  of  potash 

Chromate  of  lead 

Glycerine,  for  manufacturing  purposes 

Glycerine,  refined 

Hermes,  liver  of  antimony,  mineral  crocus, 
and  other  oxides  of  salts  of  antimony,  ex- 
cepting the  emetic. 

Lactate  of  iron 

Magnesia,  calcined 

Nitrate  of  potash  (saltpeter)  and  of  soda. . 

Oxalate  of  potash 

Silicate  of  soda,  anhydrous 

Silicate  of  soda,  crystallized 

Silicate  of  eoda,  hydrate 

Sulphate  of  copper 

Sulphate  of  iron 

Sulphate  double  of  iron  and  copper 

Sulphate  of  soda,  pure,  anhydrous,  con- 
taining in  native  state  25  per  cent,  or 
less  of  salt. 

Sulphate  of  soda,  pure,  anhydrous,  con- 
taining in  native  state  more  than  25  per 
cent,  of  salt. 

Sulphate  of  soda,  pure,  crystallized  or  hy- 
drated (Glauber’s  salts). 

Sulphate  of  soda,  impure,  anhydrous,  con- 
taining in  native  state  25  per  cent,  or 
less  of  salt. 

Sulphate  of  soda,  impure,  anhydrous,  con- 
taining in  native  state  25  per  cent,  or 

less  of  salt. 

Sulphate  of  soda,  impure,  crystallized  or 
hyflrated  (Glauber’s  salts). 

Sulphate  of  zinc 

Sulphite  of  soda 

Hyposulphite  of  soda 

Sulphuret  of  arsenic 


Sulphuret  of  mercury,  natural  (cinnabar) . 
Sulphuret  of  mercury,  artificial  (in  stones) 
Sulphuret  of  mercury,  pulverized  (Ver- 
million). 

Tartrate  of  potash,  including  the  double 
tartrate  of  potash  and  soda. 

Prussiate  of  potash,  yellow 

Prussiate  of  potash,  red 

Chemical  products  of  tar  and  coal  (coal-oil, 
benzine,  and  other  light  oils,  heavy  oils, 
nitro  benzine,  aniline,  phenic  acid,  naph- 
thaline, anthracine,  and  others  not  men- 
tioned). 

All  other  chemical  products  not  men- 
tioned, including  extracts  of  quinine, 
and  phosphoric  paste. 


DYES,  PREPARED. 


259  Cochineal 

260  Kermes,  animal 

261  I Lac  dye 


Customs 

valuation. 


Fret.  Ots. 
100.  00 
45. 00 


4000. 00 


12. 00 
8.  00 


130. 00 

105. 00 


200. 00 


380. 00 
260.  00 


150. 00 
20.  00 
20.  00 


51.  00 

7.  00 
20.00 

8.  00 


18.  00 


750. 00 
650.  00 


240.  00 


Units. 


.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

do 

do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


.do 


.do 

.do 

.do 


.do 

.do 

do 

.do 


do 

.do 

.do 


Duty. 


Fres. 


Free 


Ot g. 

6.  25 

2. 00 

7.  50 
32. 00 

200.  00 
18.  50 
a4. 50 
aO.  50 


Free 


10. 00 
16.  00 
4.  75 
7.  50 
25.  00 


43.  00 
18.50 


12.  50 
*4.  25 
*3.  75 
‘2. 10 
3.  00 
0.  65 
0.  50 
‘2.20 


*9.00 

*1.20 

*2.20 

*8.25 

*L  10 

L 40 
*2. 20 
*4.  75 
5 per  cent,  ad 
valorem. 

Free 

31.  00 
62.00 


Free. 


Free. 


20.  00 

30. 00 


5 per  cent,  ad 
valorem , 
with  power 
to  transfer 
to  specific 
duty. 


Free. 

Free. 

Free. 


Pr.  ct. 
6.2 
4.  5 


5.0 


3.3 

6.0 


7.7 

16.0 


3.8 


11.3 

7.2 


8.4 

21.0 

19.0 

6.  0 

9.0 

2.5 

27.0 


12.0 


4.1 

9.5 


8.0 


* Including  the  cost  of  the  superintendence  of  the  manufacture  qf  soda. 


Estimated  ad 
valorem  duty. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


607 


Inolosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


Is 

1| 

’■§'1 

H £ 


262 

263 

264 

265 

266 

267 

268 

269 

270 

271 


272 


273 

274 

275 

276 


278 


279 


280 

281 


282 

283 


284 

285 


286 

287 


290 


dyes,  prepared — continued. 


Frcs. 


Ots. 


Indigo 

Indigo  pastel,  blue,  balls  and  composi- 
tions. 

Paste  for  pastels 

Cacbou,  in  lumps 

Eocoa,  prepared  (annato) 

Orchil,  paste  (moist) 

Orchil,  dry  (cudbear) 

Turnsole . 

Garancine  

Extracts  of  dye-stufl's,  black  and  violet  ... 

Extracts  of  dye-stuffs,  red  and  yellow 

Coal-tar  dyes : 

Dry 

Paste,  containing  at  least  50  per  cent, 
of  water. 

Picric  acid 

Alizarine  (artificial  madder) 


COLORS. 


Ultramarine 

Prussian  blue 

Carmine,  common 

Carmine,  fine 

Varnish,  alcohol 

Varnish,  turpentine 

Varnish  oil,  or  turpentine  or  oil  mixed 

Ink,  writing,  drawing 

Ink.  printing 

Black,  ivory 

Black,  for  plate  printing 

Black,  lamp 

Black,  mineral  (ore) 

Pencils,  common;  slate,  common 

Pencils,  carpenters’,  common,  in  soft  wood. 
Pencils,  fine,  in  cedar  or  filled  with  colored 
lead. 

Pencils  for  pocket-books,  with  or  without 
bone  heads. 

Ochers,  ground,  or  otherwise  prepared  for 
painting. 

Earths,  cologne,  cassel,  Italian  sienna, 
and  amber. 

Green,  Schweinfurt  and  mixed  green;  blue 
and  green  ashes. 

Green,  mountain,  Brunswick,  and  others 
formed  by  mixing  chromate  of  lead  and 
Prussian  blue. 

Talc,  pulverized 

Colors  ground  in  oils,  including  carbonate 
of  lead  in  oil. 

Water  colors  for  paper  hangings 

Colors  not  specified 


VARIOUS  COMPOUNDS. 


Perfumery,  soaps  — 
Perfumery,  alcoholic . 


Perfumery,  not  alcoholic 

Soap,  common 

Sizing  made  from  Iceland  moss  (lichen  fer- 
ment). 


100.  00 
200.  00 


140.  00 
140.  00 


350.  00 


130. 00 

350. 00 
500.  00 

4, 000.  00 
300.  00 
200.  00 
300.  00 
1,  000.  00 
200.  00 
90.  00 
200.  00 
40.  00 


100.  00 


6. 00 
20.  00 
50. 00 
50. 00 


12. 00 
100.  00 


100. 00 


300. 00 


400. 00 
55.00 


.do 

.do 


....do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 


Frcs. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 
Free . 


Ots. 


Free. 

Free. 

Free. 


5.00 

10.00 


.do 

.do 


do 

....do 


do 

....do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

....do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Per  100  kilos 

— do 

do 


20.00 

30.00 

125. 00 

70. 00 

25.00 
5 per  cent,  ad 

valorem, 
with  power 
to  transfer 
to  specific 
duty. 

20. 00 

12. 50 

25. 00 

200.  00 

(B)  30. 00 

20.  00 

40. 00 

20. 00 
20.00 

5.00 

8.00 

1. 20 


Free. 


...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 


...do 

...do 


.do 

.do 


1. 00 
35.00 

140. 00 

240.00 
0.25 
0. 50 
5. 00 
5.00 


0. 25 
4. 00 

7.  50 

5 per  cent,  ad 
valorem, 
with  power 
to  transfer 
to  a specific 
duty. 


Per  100  kilos 
Per  hectoliter 
of  pure  alco- 
hol. 

Per  100  kilos 

...do 

— do 


12. 00 

a37.  50 


12.  00 
6. 00 
6.00 


Pr.  ct. 


5.0 

5.0 


14.0 

21.0 


10.0 

7.0 


15.0 

3.5 
5.0 

5.0 

10.0 
10.0 

13.0 

1.0 

10.0 

5.5 

4.0 

3.0 


1.0 


60.0 

4.0 

2.5 

10.0 

10.0 


2.0 

4.0 


7.5 


4.0 


3.0 

11.0 


(B)  Not  including  the  internal-revenue  tax. 


608  REPOET  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


o 


Articles. 


6 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


■£§ 


various  compounds— continued. 


291 


293 


294 

295 

296 

297 

298 

299 

300 


301 

302 

303 
314 

305 

306 


307 


308 

309 

310 

311 

312 

313 


314 


315 

316 


Prepared  spices : 

Mustard 

Sauces,  &c 

Medicaments  not  mentioned,  specified  in 
the  official  Pharmacopia.a. 

Medicaments,  other 

Waters,  distilled,  alcoholic - 


Frcs. 


Ots. 
150.  00 
400. 00 


Waters,  distilled,  not  alcoholic 

Chicory,  roasted  or  ground 

Starch 

Feculas 

Sealing  wax 

i Candles,  spermaceti,  paraffine  and  wax,  of 
all  sorts. 

W ax  and  stearic  acid,  not  in  candles 

Candles  having  wicks  twisted,  woven  or 
plaited,  and  chemically  prepared. 

Candles,  other  than  above 

Fish  glue 

Glue  and  gelatine 

Albumen 

Ginger-bread 

Sugar  of  milk 

Blacking  


100.  00 
45.00 
71.  00 


300.  00 
190.  00 

200.  00 


2,  900.  00 


120.  00 
*80.* 66' 


do 

do 


Per  hectoliter 
of  pure  al- 
cohol. 

Per  100  kilos. 

do 

do 

....do 

do 

do 


do 

....do 

...do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

— do 
....do 


Frcs.  Ots. 

Pr.  ct. 

5.00 

3.3 

25.00 

6.0 

See  note 

Prohibited . . . 

(6)30.00 

10.  00 

10.0 

5. 00 

11.0 

6. 00 

8.5 

6. 00 

30. 00 

10.0 

(6)19.  00 

10.0 

19.  00 

9.5 

(6)12.  00 

(6)6.  00 

40.  00 

1.4 

Free 

Free 

15.00 

12.5 

Free 

4.  00 

5.0 

BEVERAGES. 


Wines,  of  all  sorts 

(Wines  showing  proof  of  15°  shall  he 
liable  the  duty  on  alcohol,  according  to 
quantity  of  spirit  exceeding  15°,  and  shall 
he  subject  to  the  import  duty  on  wine  for 
the  remainder  of  the  liquid.)  t 

Vinegar,  other  than  perfumery 

Cider,  perry  and  verjuice 

Beer 

Mead 

Orange  juice 

Alcohol  and  brandy,  in  bottles 

Alcohol  and  brandy,  not  in  bottles 

Other  alcohols 

Liquors  . . . : 

(All  products  composed  partly  or  mostly 
of  alcohol  shall  be  subject  exclusively  to 
the  customs  dues  hearing  upon  them,  to 
the  internal  revenues  on  alcohol  in  use; 
said  dues  shall  be  decided  by  the  consult- 
ing committee  of  arts  and  manufactures.) 

Apples  and  pears,  crushed 

Mineral  waters  (jars  included) 


Per  hectoliter 


35. 00 

20. 00 
45.  00 
20.  00 
90.  00 


do 

do 

do 

....do 
do 


300. 00 


Per  liquid  bee-! 
toliter. 

do 

do 

do 


Per  100  kilos. 
do 


t4. 50 


(6)4.  50 

13.0 

(6)1.  00 

5.0 

(c)  7.  75 

17.0 

(6)20.  00 

100.0 

4.50 

5.0 

(6)30.  50 

25.0 

(6)30.  00 
(6)30. 00 

25.0 

13.0 

(6)40. 00 

Free 

Free 


EARTHEN,  STONE,  AND  GLASS  WARE. 


317 

to 

320 


321 

322 


Potteries  of  common  clay,  gas  retorts, 
crucibles,  all  sorts,  including  those  in 
graphite  or  plumbago;  drain  pipes,  clay 
pipes,  and  other,  not  glazed. 

Potteries,  others,  glazed,  without  decora- 
tions of  sculpture  or  painting  (coarse 
pottery). 

Potteries,  others,  glazed,  with  decorations 
of  sculpture  or  painting. 

Utensils  used  in  the  manufacture  of  chem- 
ical products. 


do 


40. 00 


.do 


do 

do 


Free 

Free 


5. 00  8. 0 

Free 


a Specific  duties  to  be  decided  by  the  high  school  of  pharmacy,  rating  at  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  ex- 
clusive of  the  duties  which  may  he  fixed  on  medicaments  composed  of  dutiable  substances,  either  by 
the  custom-house  or  internal  revenue. 

6 Not  including  the  internal-revenue  tax. 

c Including  the  discriminating  duty  repiesenting  the  tax  imposed  uDon  beer  manufactured  in  France. 
tWines,  ordinary,  in  casks,  5 per  cent.  Wines,  ordinary,  in  bottles,  2 per  cent.  Wines,  fine,  in 
casks,  1.5  per  cent.  Wines,  fine,  in  bottles,  0.9  per  cent. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


609 


Inclosure  JSro.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


tsa 


323 

324 

325 


328 


329 


330 

331 


332 


333 

334 
336 


337 


EARTHERN,  STONE,  AND  GLASS  WARE— COnt’d 
Stoneware — 

Common 

Fine 

Ceramics,  tiles,  of  different  colors 

Ceramics,  tiles,  of  one  color 

Faiences,  stanniferous,  of  colored  paste, 
covered,  white  or  colored,  with  orna- 
ments in  relief,  flutings  or  indentations, 
monochrone,  molded,  not  finished  by 
hand. 

Faience,  particolored,  glaze,  stamped  or 
hand-painted,  or  molded,  and  hand-fin- 
ished. 

Faience,  fine  (fine  white,  paste-baked,  and 
cleansed),  white,  or  covered  with  uni- 
form colored  glaze. 

Faience,  fine,  decorated 

White  porcelain 

Decorated  porcelain 

Decorated  porcelain,  of  fortified  thickness. 
Porcelain,  Parian,  and  white  and  colored 
bisque. 

GLASS  AND  CRYSTAL. 

Glass  plates  and  mirrors— 

Less  than  half  a square  meter 

From  half  a meter  square  to  a meter 
square,  exclusively,  rough,  unpol- 
ished. 

From  half  a meter  square  to  1 meter 
square,  exclusive,  polished  or  sil- 
vered. 

A meter  square  or  more,  unpolished  . . 

A meter  square  or  more,  polished  or 
silvered. 

Goblets  of  glass  or  crystal,  plain,  molded, 
or  pressed,  white  or  tinted  throughout, 

one  color 

Goblet  s cut  or  engraved  in  any  other  man- 
ner than  is  necessary  for  effacing  the 
mark  of  the  pontee. 

Goblets,  decorated  in  gold  or  colors 

Window-glass,  common 

Stained  window-glass,  engraved,  polished. 
Watch  crystals,  spectacle,  and  optic,  in- 
cluding glasses  for  toy  watches,  unpol- 
ished. 

Same,  cut  and  polished 

Vitrifications  and  enamel  (casting)  in  lumps 
or  tubes. 

Vitrifications,  in  beads,  pierced  and  cut, 
or  in  imitation,  jewelry,  brooches,  col- 
ored or  not,  spun  glass,  halls,  and  imita- 
tion coral. 

Bottles,  full  or  empty 

Broken  glass I 

Other  glass  objects  not  mentioned 


Frcs.  Ots. 
30.’ 66 


THREADS. 

Flax  or  linen  thread. 

Threads,  single,  unbleached,  measuring  in 
the  kilogram : 

2,000  meters  or  less 

More  than  2,000  meters  and  not  above 

5.000  meters. 

More  than  5,000  meters  and  not  above 

10.000  meters. 

More  than  10,000  meters  and  not  above 

20.000  meters. 

More  than  20,000  meters  and  not  above 

30.000  meters. 

S.  Ex.  72 39 


Per  100  kilos. 

— do 

— do 

...do 

do 


Frcs. 


Free. 


165.  00 


65.  00 


165.  00 
200.  00 
450.  00 
165  00 
450  00 


135. 00 


...do 


...do  ... 


.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


Square  meter 
...do 


15.  00 


12.  50 
40.  50 


...do 


...do 

...do 


100  kilos 


.do 


33. 00 
400.  00 


...do 
...do 
...do 
. . .do 


900.  00 
250.  00 


14.  00 
’ 140.' 66’ 


...do 
. . .do 


...do 


120.  00 
160. 00 

200. 00 

240.  00 

275. 00 


100  kilos 

...do 

...do 

...do  


Free . 


Ots. 
4.  00 
8.  00 
3.  00 
1.  00 


Pr.  ct. 


10.0 


15.00 


10. 00 


15.  00 
12.  50 
25.  00 
15.  00 
25.00 


25.  00 
1.  20 


3.  75 


1.  90 
5. 00 


31.  00 
4.  25 
18.  50 
15.  00 


149.  00 
4.  75 


25.00 


3.  00 
’i8.'50 


16.  00 
18.  00 

23.  00 

33.  00 

40.  00 


9.0 


15.4 


9. 1 
6.0 
5.5 
9.1 
5.5 


19.0 


25.0 


15.0 

12.0 


4. 25 
12.  50  j )>  7. 5 


13.0 

4.6 


16.0 

10.0 

2.1 


13.0 


7.5 

10.0 

8.7 
7.3 

6.8 


610  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY, 


Inclo8ure  No.  1 — Continued. 


No.  of  articles. 

Articles. 

Customs 

valuation. 

IJnits. 

Duty. 

Estimated  ad 
.valorem  duty. 

threads— Continued. 

Flax  or  linen  thread— continued. 

Threads,  single,  unbleached,  measured  in 
the  kilogram— Continued. 

More  than  30,000  meters  and  not  above 

Free.  Ots. 

475. 00 

100  kilos 

Free.  Cts. 

50. 00 

Pr.  ct. 
9.6 

40,000  meters. 

More  than  40,000  meters  and  not  above 

625. 00 

— do 

70. 00 

9.0 

60,000  meters. 

More  than  60,000  meters  and  not  above 

850. 00 

do 

99.00 

8.5 

80,000  meters. 

More  than  80,000  meters  and  not  above 

1, 200. 00 

— do 

149.  00 

8.0 

100,000  meters. 

100,000  or  more 

1, 500. 00 
145. 00 

....  do 

200. 00 
20.  80 

7.5 

7.0 

(Polished  threads  under  2.000  meters 
shall  paythe  same  duty  as  twine,  and  those  . 
measuring  more  than  2,000  meters  shall 
pay  the  same  duty  as  linen  and  hemp 
thread,  bleached  or  colored,  single  or 
twisted.) 

Thread,  single,  bleached,  measuring  in 
the  kilogram : 

2,000  meters  or  less 

do 

Above  2,000  meters  and  not  above 

200. 00 

. . do 

23. 40 

8.5 

5,000  meters. 

Above  5,000  meters  and  not  above 

250.  00 

do 

29.90 

8.4 

10,000  meters. 

Above  10,000  meters  and  not  above 

310. 00 

do 

42. 90 

7.2 

20,000  meters. 

Above  20,000  meters  and  not  above 

430.  00 

do 

52.  00 

8.0 

30,000  meters. 

Above  30,000  meters  and  not  above 

550. 00 

— do 

65.00 

8.5 

40,000  meters. 

Above  40,000  meters  and  not  above 

700. 00 

...do  

91.  00 

7.8 

60,000  meters. 

Above  60,000  meters  and  not  above 

950.  00 

— do 

128. 70 

7.4 

80,000  meters. 

Above  80,000  meters  and  not  above 

1,  700.  00 

....do 

193.  70 

8.7 

100,000  meters. 

100.000  meters  or  more 

Thread,  single,  colored,  measuring  in  the 

kilogram : 

2.000  meters  or  less 

1, 700. 00 
190. 00 

do 

do 

260.00 
20.  80 

9.0 

Above  2,000  meters  and  not  above 

250. 00 

do 

23.  40 

11.0 

5,000  meters. 

Above  5,000  meters  and  not  above 

300.  00 

do 

29. 90 

10.0 

10,000  meters. 

Above  10,000  meters  and  not  above 

375.  00 

...do 

42. 90 

8.7 

20,000  meters. 

Above  20,000  meters  and  not  above 

500.  00 

do 

52.  00 

9.5 

30,000  meters. 

Above  30,000  meters  and  not  above 

625.  00 

do 

65.00 

9.6 

40,000  meters. 

Above  40.000  meters  and  not  above 

850.  00 

....do 

91.  00 

9.4 

60,000  meters. 

Above  60,000  meters  and  not  above 

1, 100.  00 

do 

128  70 

8.5 

80,000  meters. 

Above  80,000  meters  and  not  above 

1,  900.  00 

....do 

193.  70 

9.8 

100,000  meters. 

100.000  meters  or  more 

Thread,  twisted,  unbleached,  measuring 

in  the  kilogram : 

2.000  meters  or  less 

1, 900. 00 
160. 00 

— do 

— do 

260.  00 
20.  80 

7.6 

Above  2,000  meters  and  not  above 

200.  00 

do 

23. 40 

8 5 

5,000  meters. 

Above  5, 000  meters  and  not  above 

300.  00 

do 

29.90 

10.0 

10,000  meters. 

Above  10,000  meters  and  not  above 

550.  00 

....do 

42. 90 

13.0 

20  000  meters. 

Above  20,000  meters  and  not  above 

650.  00 

— do 

52. 00 

12.3 

30,000  meters. 

Above  30,000  meters  and  not  above 

800.  00 

...  do  

65.00 

12.3 

40,000  meters. 

Above  40,000  meters  and  not  above 

1,  200.  00 

— do 

91.00 

13.0 

60,000  meters. 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


611 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


a 

,2 

Si? 

o 

*o 

Articles. 

Customs 

valuation. 

Units. 

Duty. 

■S-B 
os  a 
a £ 

o* 

'-si 

6 

w P 

threads — con  tinned. 
Thread  twisted,  &c. — Continued. 

Frcs.  Cts. 

Frcs.  Ct8. 

Pr.  et. 

Above  60,000  meters  and  not  above 

1,  700. 00 

do 

128. 70 

13.0 

80,000  meters. 

Above  80,000  meters  and  not  above 

— do 

193. 70 

15.0 

3,  000.  00 

100,000  meters. 

do 

260. 00 

3, 000. 00 

Thread,  twisted,  bleached,  measuring  in 

the  kilogram : 

185. 00 

do 

27.04 
30. 42 

7.0 

8.7 

Above  2,000  meters  and  not  abov^ 

260.  00 

do 

5,000  meters. 

Above  5,000  meters  and  not  above 

400.  00 

do 

38. 87 

11.0 

10,000  meters. 

Above  10,000  meters  and  not  above 

675.  00 

do 

55.  77 

12.0 

20,000  meters. 

Above  20,000  meters  and  not  above 

800.  00 

— do 

67.  60 

12.0 

30,000  meters. 

Above  30,000  meters  and  cot  above 
40,000  meters. 

1,  000.  00 

do  

84.50 

12.0 

Above  40,000  meters  and  not  above 

1,400.  00 

do 

118. 30 

12.0 

60,000  meters. 

Above  60,000  meters  and  not  above 

1,  900.  00 

do 

167. 30 

12.0 

80,000  meters. 

Above  80,000  meters  and  not  above 
100,000  meters. 

3,  200.  00 

....  do 

255.  81 

12.0 

do 

Above  100, 000  meters 

3,  200.  00 

338. 00 

Thread,  twisted,  dyed,  measuring  in  the 

kilogram : 

2,000  meters  or  less 

200.  00 
300.  00 

do 

27.04 

30.42 

7.4 

10.0 

Above  2,000  meters  and  not.  above 

— do  

5,000  meters. 

Above  5,000  meters  and  not  above 

475.  00 

do 

38.87 

12.0 

10,000  meters. 

Above  10,000  meters  and  not  above 

do 

750.  00 

55.77 

13.0 

20,000  meters. 

Above  20,000  meters  and  not  above 

925.  00 

do  

67.  60 

13.0 

30,000  meters. 

Above  30,000  meters  and  not  above 

1, 100.  00 

- . do 

84.  50 

13.0 

40,000  meters. 

Above  40,000  meters  and  not  above 

1,  500.  00 

— do 

118.  30 

13.0 

60,000  meters. 

Above  60,000  meters  and  not  above 

2,  000.  00 

...do  

167. 30 

13.0 

80,000  meters. 

Above  80,000  meters  and  not  above 

3,  400.  00 

do 

255. 81 

13.0 

100,000  meters. 

Above  100,  OuO  meters 

do 

3,  400.  00 

338. 00 

Thread  of  flax  or  hemp  mixed,  the  flax 
or  hemp  predominating  in  weight,  shall 

pay  the  same  duty  as  flax  or  hemp  thread 

pure,  according  to  class. 

THREAD  OF  JUTE,  PURE. 

538 

Thread,  jute,  pure,  unbleached,  measuring 

in  the  kilogram: 

Less  than  1,400  meters 

do 

6.  25 

7.  50 

1 

From  1,400  meters  to  3,699  meters,  in- 
clusive. 

■ .a 

....do 

•2  ® 

From  3,700  meters  to  4,199  meters,  in- 

bp 

to  c&  J 

....do 

8.75 

> 12 
1 

clusive. 

f OH  S 

— <D 

From  4,200  meters  to  6,000  meters,  in- 
clusive. 

ca  | 

do 

12. 50 

1 

**  1 

J 

More  than  6,000  meters «. 

J g l 

...do 

Same  dnty  as 
flax  or  hemp 

thread. 

No.  of  articles. 


612 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY 


Inclosnre  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


339 


340 


340 


340 


THREAD  of  jute,  pure — continued. 

Thread,  jute,  pure,  bleached  or  colored, 
measuring  in  the  kilogram : 

Less  than  1,400  meters 

-From  1,400  meters  to  3,699  meters,  in- 
clusive. 

From  3,700  meters  to  4,199  meters,  in- 
clusive. 

From  4.200  meters  to  6,000  meters,  in 
elusive. 

More  than  6,000  meters 


Thread,  jute,  mixed,  the  jute  predominat- 
I ing  in  weight. 

Thread  of  phomiium  tenax,  abaca,  and 
other  fibrous  vegetables  not  mentioned, 
either  pure  or  mixed,  the  phormium  or 
abaca,  &e.,  predominating  in  weight. 

COTTOX  YARXS. 

Single  yam,  unbleached,  measuring  by 
^ kilogram : 

20.500  meters  or  less 

20.500  to  30,500  meters 

30.500  to  40,500  meters 

40.500  to  50,500  meters 

50.500  to  60,500  meters 

60.500  to  70,500  meters 

70.500  to  80,500  meters 

80.500  to  90,5t0  meters 

90.500  to  100,500  meters 

100.500  to  110,500  meters 

110.500  to  120,500  meters 

120.500  to  130,500  meters 

130.500  to  140,500  meters 

140.500  to  170,500  meters 

170.500  meters  

Single  cotton  yarns,  bleached,  shall  pay 

the  duty  on  single  unbleached  yams, 
increased  15  per  cent.,  viz:  For  yams 
measuring  to  the  £ kilogram : 

20.500  meters  or  less 

20. 500  to  30, 500  meters 

30. 500  to  40  500  meters 

40.500  to  50,500  meters  

50.500  to  60.500  meters 

60.500  to  70,500  meters 

70.500  to  80,500  meters 

80.500  to  90,500  meters 

90.500  to  100,500  meters 

100.500  to  110,500  meters 

110.500  to  120,500  meters 

120.500  to  130,500  meters 

130.500  to  140,500  meters 

140.500  to  170,500  meters 

170.500  meters 

Single  cotton  yarns,  dyed  or  clouded,  in 

ordinary  dyes,  measuring  to  the  4 kilo- 
gram : 

20.500  meters  or  less 

20.500  to  30,500  meters 

40.500  meters 

50.500  meters 

60.500  meters 

70.500  meters 

80.500  meters 

80.500  to  90,500  meters 

90.500  to  100  500  meters 

100.500  to  110,500  meters 

110. 5u0  to  120,500  meters 

120.500  to  130.500  meters  

130.500  to  140,500  meters 

140.500  to  170,500  meters 

170.500  meters 


Customs 

valuation. 


Free.  Cts. 

1 -illfe 


bl>  p § 
cSTj  esS 
t* 

o 

>;C  = 


30.500  to 

40.500  to 

50.500  to 

60.500  to 

70.500  to 


r-f* 


sl 


> !M 


ii * 

§1 


a rr 
► o 


© 2 
it  - 

s ~ 

fee 

<1  €-1 


II  © 


Units. 

Duty. 

Frcs.  Cts. 

100  kilos  

8. 75 

..  do 

11.00 

do 

12. 50 

do 

17.50 

....do 

Same  duty  as  | 
flax  or  hemp 
thread. 

Same  duty  as  ! 
pure  j u t e 1 
thread. 

....do 

Same  duty  as 
thread  of 
jute. 

do 

18.50 

— do 

25.00 

do 

37.00  i 

do 

50.  oo ; 

do 

62.  00  : 

do 

74.  00  ! 

— do 

87.00  1 

— do 

112.00 

. . do 

124.00  1 

. . do 

149.00 

do 

174.00 

— do 

198.00  1 

do 

248.00  i 

do 

310.00 

do 

372.  00 

1 . . . do 

21.25  ! 

do 

28.75  ; 

do 

42.  55 

do 

57.  50 

i do 

71.30  i 

...do 

85.10 

! do 

100.05 

...do 

128.80 

...do 

142.60  1 

. do 

171.35 

do 

200. 10 

do 

227.70  1 

do 

285.20  ; 

do 

356.50 

do  

427.80 

do 

48.50  j 

. . . .do : 

55.00  I 

do j 

67.00 

do 

80.00 

....do 

92.00 

— do ! 

104.00  i 

— do 

117.00  , 

; do 

142.00 

...do  

154.00 

' . . do 

179.  00  1 

. ..do  

204.  00 

...do 

228.  00 

do | 

278.00 

do 

340.00 

I do , 

402.00  | 

Pr.  et. 


16 


Estimated  ad 
valorem  duty. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


613 


Inclosure  No.  1. — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


■3;? 

"ce  9 


| -a 
w > 


340 


341 


341 


cotton  tarns— continued. 

Cotton  yarn,  single,  dyed  or  clouded,  in 
Turkey  red,  measuring  to  the  § kilo- 
gram: 

20,500  meters  or  less 

20.500  to  30,500  meters 

30.500  to  40,500  meters 

40.500  to  50,500  meters 

50.500  to  60,500  meters 

60.500  to  70,500  meters 

70.500  to  80,500  meters * 

80.500  to  90,500  meters 

90.500  to  100,500  meters 

100.500  to  110,500  meters 

110.500  to  120,500  meters 

120.500  to  130,500  meters 

130.500  to  140,500  meters 

140.500  to  170,500  meters 

170.500  meters 

Cotton  yarn,  twisted,  unbleached,  in  two 

or  three  strands,  in  small,  ordinary 
skeins,  measuring  to  the  \ kilogram  : 

20.500  meters  or  less 

20.500  to  30,500  meters 

30.500  to  40,500  meters 

40. 500  to  50, 500  meters 

50.500  to  60,500  meters 

60.500  to  70,500  meters 

70.500  to  80,500  meters 

80.500  to  90,500  meters 

90.500  to  100,500  meters 

100.500  to  110,500  meters 

110.500  to  120,500  meters 

120.500  to  130,500  meters 

130.500  to  140,500  meters 

140.500  to  170,500  meters 

170.500  meters 

Cotton  yarn,  twisted,  bleached,  twisted  in 

two  or  three  strands,  measuring  by  \ 
kilogram : 

20.500  meters 

20.500  to  30,500  meters 

30.500  to  40,500  meters 

40.500  to  50,500  meters 

50.500  to  60,500  meters 

60.500  to  70,500  meters 

70.500  to  80,500  meters 

80.500  to  90,500  meters 

90.500  to  100,500  meters 

100.500  to  110,500  meters 

110.500  to  120,500  meters 

120.500  to  130,500  meters 

130.500  to  140,500  meters  . , 

140.500  to  170,500  meters 

170.500  meters 

Cotton  yarn,  twisted,  of  two  or  three 

threads,  dyed  in  ordinary  colors  or 
clouded. 


Cotton  yarn,  twisted,  of  two  or  three 
threads,  dyed  in  Turkey  red. 


Cotton  yarn,  twisted,  in  small  ordinary 
skeins,  of  four  or  more  threads,  un- 
bleached, bleached,  or  colored: 

Single  twisted. 


Frcs. 


Ots. 


o 

> 


fcX'w 
c3  © 


Double  twisted  and  cable 


,3  g 
^ © 
9 t 


£3 


100  kilos 

Pres.  Cts. 

78. 50 

....do 

85. 00 

do 

97.  00 

— do 

110.  00 

do 

122. 00 

...  do  

134.  00 

147. 00 

do 

172.  00 

do 

184.  00 

— do 

209.  00 

do 

234.  00 

do 

258.  00 

..  do 

308.  00 

do 

370.  00 

...  do  

432.  00 

....do 

24.  05 

do 

32.  50 

— do 

48. 10 

do 

65.00 

do 

80.  60 

do 

96.  20 

do 

113. 10 

....do 

145.  60 

do 

161.  20 

do 

193.  70 

....do 

226.  20 

do 

257.  40 

do 

322. 40 

— do 

403.  00 

....do 

483.  60 

— do 

27.65 

— do 

37. 38 

...do  

55.  32 

do 

74.  75 

— do 

92.69 

— do 

110.  63 

do 

130.  06 

...  do  

167. 44 

do 

185.  38 

. . do 

222.  75 

do 

260. 13 

do 

296.  01 

do 

370.  76 

— do 

463. 45 

do 

556. 14 

— do 

30  francs  per  j 

100  kilos,  in 
addition  to 
the  duty 
levied  on 
twisted 
yarn,  un- 
bleached. 

60  francs  per 
ICO  kilos,  in 
addition  to 
the  duty 
on  yarn, 
twisted,  un- 
bleached. 

0.  015 

Per  100  me- 

ters of  sin- 
gle thread. 

0.02 

Pr.  ct. 


Av.10 


• Av.10 


10.0 


11.0 


11.0 


614  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Inclo8ure  Ao.  1 — Continued. 


Units. 

Duty. 

Pres.  Ct8. 

0.02 

0. 025 

Per  100  kilos. 

Duty  on  the 

component 
yarn  aug- 
mented by 
30  per  cent. 

Same  duty  as 

unbleached 
cotton  warp, 
with  the  ad- 
dition of  15 
per  cent. 

Same  duty  as 

...do 

that  of  un- 
bleached 
yam,  with 
the  addition 
of  30  francs 
per  100  kilos 
when  dyed 
in  ordinary 
colors;  of  60 
francs  per 
100  kilos 
when  dyed 
in  Turkey 
red. 

Same  duty  as 

Per  100  kilos . 

that  of  pure 
cotton  yarn. 

25.00 

do ! 

31. 00 

....do  

43. 00 

....do  

56. 00 

do 

68. 00 

do 

81.00 

....do 

93.00  1 

....do 

105.  00 

— do 

118.  00 

do 

124.  00 

— do 

18.  50 

| do 

28.  00 

...do 

37.  00 

— do 

46.  00 

1 — do 

56.  00 

. . do 

62.00 

do 

74.00 

— do 

87.  00 

do 

99.00 

do 

112.00 

do 

124.  00 

do  

136.  00 

; dO 

149.  00 

1 — do 

155.00 

Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Hi'S 

”§a 

S £ 

’-3  ° 
r!S’e3 


342 


cotton  yabns — continued. 

Cotton  yam,  twisted,  made  up  in  balls, 
spools,  skeins,  cards,  or  other  forms, 
regardless  of  the  number  of  strands,  of 
bleaching,  unbleaching,  dyeing: 

Single  twisted 

Double  twisted  and  cable 

Cotton  warps : 

Unbleached 


Frcs. 


Cta. 


343 


Bleached . 


Dyed. 


Cotton  yam,  mixed,  the  cotton  predomi- 
nating in  weight. 


WOOLS. 


343^  Wool,  including  alpaca,  llama,  vicuna, 
yak,  and  camel’s  hair,  carded,  combed, 
or  dyed. 

344  Yarn  of  pure  wool,  bleached  or  unbleached, 
I combed,  measuring  to  the  kilogram : 
30,500  meters  or  less 

30. 500  to  40, 500  meters 

40.500  to  50.500  meters 

50.500  to  60,500  meters 

60.500  to  70.500  meters 

70.500  to  80,500  meters 

80. 500  to  90, 500  meters 

90.500  to  100,500  meters 

100,500  meters 

Yarns  of  pure  wool,  single  thread,  bleached 
or  unbleached,  combed,  measuring  to 
the  kilogram : 

10,000  meters  or  less 1 

10.000  to  15,000  meters 

15.000  to  20,000  meters > 

20.000  to  30,500  meters 

30.500  meters J 

Yam,  of  pure  wool,  single  thread,  dyed, 

combed,  measuring  to  the  kilogram: 

30.500  meters  or  less ") 

30.500  to  40,500  meters I 

40.500  to  50,500  meters 

50.500  to  60,500  meters | 

60.500  to  70,500  meters 

70.500  to  80,500  meters 

80.500  to  90,500  meters 

90.500  to  100,500  meters 

100,500  meters  


1,  500. 00 


Average,  720  . 
francs. 


Average,  720  ( 
francs. 


700  francs 
in  the  av-  < 
erage. 


Pr.  et. 


6.0 


1.7 


6.0 


9.0 


9.0 


No.  of  articles. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


615 


Inclo8ure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 

Customs 

valuation. 

Units. 

Duty. 

■ 

cotton  yarns— continued. 

Yarn,  of  pure  wool,  single  thread,  dyed, 

carded,  measuring  to  the  kilogram: 

Frcs.  Cts. 

Frcs.  Cts. 

l 

do 

50.00 

700  francs 
in  the  av-  < 

do 

59.  00 

15,000  to  20,000  meters > 

. . do 

68.00 

erage. 

do 

77.00 

30,500  meters J 

do 

87.00  | 

Yarn,  of  pure  wool,  twisted,  for  weaving, 
bleached  or  not,  combed,  measuring  to 
the  kilogram,  in  single  thread: 

30,500  meters  or  less 

do . . 

40.  00 

do 

56.  00 

40,500  to  50,500  meters 

do 

72.  00 

50,500  to  60,500  meters 

815  francs 

do 

88.  00 

in  the  av-  < 

...  do  

104.  00 

70,500  to  80,500  meters 

erage. 

do  ..  .. 

120.  00 

80,500  to  90,500  meters 

. . do 

136.  00 

90,500  to  100,500  meters 

. . do 

152.  00 

100,500  meters  

t 

do 

161.  00 

Yarn,  of  pure  wool,  twisted  for  weaving, 

bleached  or  not,  carded,  measuring  to 
the  kilogram,  in  single  thread: 

( 

. do 

28.  00 

10,000  to  15,000  meters. . . 

825  francs  j 

. . . .do 

37.  00 

15,000  to  20,000  meters S 

in  the  av-  2 

....do  

46.  00 

20,000  to  30,500  meters | 

erage. 

do 

56.  00 

... .do  

65.  00 

Yarn  of  pure  wool,  twisted  for  weaving, 
dyed,  combed,  measuring  to  the  kilo- 
gram in  single  thread : 

30,500  meters  or  less 

. . . .do 

71.  00 

30,500  to  40,500  meters 

— do 

87.  00 

40,500  to  50,500  meters 

do 

99.  00 

50,500  to  60,500  meters 

940  francs 

do 

112.  00 

60,500  to  70,500  meters S 

in  the  av- ' 

do  

124.  00 

70,500  to  80,500  meters 

erage. 

. . . .do 

138.  00 

80,500  to  90,500  meters 

...  do  

152.  00 

90,500  to  100,500  meters 

....  do 

166.  00 

100,500  meters  ..  ..  

....  do 

174.  00 

Yarn  of  pure  wool,  twisted  for  weaving, 

dyed,  carded,  measuring  to  the  kilo- 

gram in  singlo  thread : 

10,  000  meters  or  less. l 

f 

do 

59-  00 

10,000  to  15,000  meters 

940  francs  I 

. . do 

68.  00 

15,000  to  20,000  meters v 

in  the  av-  ^ 

do  

77.  00 

20,000  to  30.500  meters  

erage. 

do 

87.  00 

30,500  meters  J 

do 

96.00 

Yarn  of  pure  wool,  twisted  for  .tapestry, 

combed,  bleached  or  not,  measuring  to 
the  kilogram  in  single  thread : 

30,500  meters  or  less  ...  

do 

46.  00 

30,500  to  40,500  meters 

do 

65.  00 

40,500  to  50,500  meters 

do 

84.  00 

50,500  to  60,500  meters 

950  francs 

. . do 

102.  00 

60,500  to  70,500  meters.  > 

in  the  av-  > 

do 

121.  00 

70,500  to  80,500  meters. 

erage. 

do 

139.  00 
158.  00 

80,500  to  90,500  meters 

...  do  

90,500  to  100,500  meters 

, 

do 

177.  00 

100,500  meters J 

1 

do 

186.00 

Yarn  of  pure  wool,  twisted  for  tapestry, 
combed,  dyed,  measuring  to  the  kilo- 
gram, in  simple  thread : 

30,500  meters  or  less 

1 s ( 

77.00 

30,500  to  40.500  meters 

. . do 

96.  00 

40,500  to  50,500  meters 

<v 
g « 

. . do 

115.00 

50, 500  to  60. 500  met  era  

..do  .. 

133. 00  1 

60,500  to  70,500  meters  

> 11  \ 

. do 

152.00  i 
170.  00 

70, 500  to  80,500  meters 

....  do 

80,500  to  90,500  meters 

g g 

do  

189.00 

90.500  to  100,500  meters  . . ..  

do 

208.00 

ICO.  500  meters 

J l 

...  do  

217.00  . 

i Yarn,  rlpaea,  lama,  vicuna,  o • camel’s  hair, 

Same  duty  as 

l moor  mixed  with  other  fibers,  the  al- 
paca, vicuna,  &.c.,  piedoiuinating  in 
1 weight. 

pure  wool 
yarn. 

Estimated  ad 
valorem  duty. 


616 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY, 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


w > 


348 


349 


350 


351 

352 


COTTON  yarns — continued. 

Yarn,  goat  hair,  pure  or  mixed,  the  goat 
hair  preponderating. 

Yarn  of  other  hair 

Yarn,  wool  mixed  with  filaments  other  than 
alpaca,  lama,  vicuna,  or  camel’s  hair, 
the  wool  preponderating. 

SILK  FLOCK  YARN. 

Yarn  of  silk  flock  (silk  fleuret),  bleached, 
unbleached,  azured  or  dyed,  measuring 
to  the  kilogram : 

Simple,  80,500  meters  or  less 

Simple,  more  than  80,500  meters 

The  same,  twisted 


Frcs.  Cts. 
1,600. 00 


Yarn  of  waste  silk  flock 
The  same,  twisted 


Fabrics  of  flax  or  hemp,  pure,  plain,  or 
worked : 

Unbleached,  showing  in  warp  and  woof 
spaces  of  5 square  millimeters,  after 
division  of  the  whole  by  2 — 

6 threads  or  less 

7 to  8 threads 

9 to  10  threads 

11  to  12  threads 

13  to  14  threads  ...  

15,  16,  and  17  threads 

18,  19,  and  20  threads 

21,  22,  and  23  threads 

Over  23  threads 

The  same,  bleached,  dyed 

The  same,  printed 

(In  counting  the  threads,  both  of  the 
warp  and  woof,  the  fractions  of  thread  are 
not  counted ; the  total  of  both  numbers  is 
divided  by  2,  and  if  the  quotient  be  frac- 
tional, the  fraction  shall  be  counted  as  an 
entire  thread.) 

Canvas  for  oil-cloth 

Linens,  damasked,  for  bedding,  and  furni- 
ture: 

Unbleached 

The  same,  bleached  or  mixed  with 
white  or  colored  threads. 


353  ! Table  linens,  damasked,  unbleached,  hav- 
! ing  in  warp  in  the  space  of  5 square 
I millimeters : 

i 12  threads  or  less 

13  and  14  threads 

15,  16,  and  17  threads 

18,  19,  and  20  threads  

' 21,  22,  and  23  threads 

More  than  23  threads 

Bleached,  clouded,  or  mixed  with  white 
or  colored  threads. 


do 


do 

.do 


220. 
230. 
350. 
575. 
695. 
800. 
860. 
1, 100. 
1,  500. 

600. 
1,  520. 


....do 
....do 
do 

— do 

do 

do 

do 

— do 
do 


280.  no 

420. 00 


Frcs. 


Cts. 
30.  00 


Pr.  ct. 
5.4 


.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


do 

— do 


do 

.do 

do 


354  Twills,  unbleached 

Twills,  cream-colored,  white,  or  mixed, 
with  unbleached,  bleached  or  colored 
threads. 


875.  00 

do 

93.  00 

950. 00 

do 

129.  00 

1,  050.  00 
1,  800.  00 

2,  800.  00 
3,  700.  00 

...do  

165.  00 

do 

265.  00 

do 

395.  00 

do 

530.  00 

Duty  on  the 
unbleached, 
a n gmented 
30  per  cent, 
•120. 00 
Same  as  above, 
augmented 
30  per  cent. 1 

700.  00  j 

Per  100  kilos, 
do 

1 

Free 

Same  duties 
as  those  on 
pure  wool 
yarn. 


93.  00 
149.  00 
Duty  on  sin- 
gle thread 
augmented 
30  per  cent. 

31.  00 
Duty  on  the 
foregoing 
augmented 
30  per  cent. 


28. 00  ; 1 
42.  00  i | 
68.  00 
81.  00 
112.  00 
143.  00 
230.  00 
344.  00 
460.  00 
Duty  on  un- 
bleached 
augmented 
30  per  cent. 


30.  00 


112.  00 
Same  duty  as 
next  above, 
augmented 
30  per  cent. 


13.0 
J8.0 

19.0 

14.0 

17.0 

18.0 
26.0 
31.0 
31.0 


11.0 

27.0 


16.0 


16.0 


17.0 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


617 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


a & 

■85 

<a 


Pr.  ct. 
4.  02 

19.0 

15.0 

14.0 

29.0 


355 


356 

357 

358 

358i 


359 


360 


361 

362 


363 


364 


cotton  yarns — continued. 

Trimmings  and  ribbons,  unbleached, 
crown,  or  grass  bleached. 

The  same,  cream-colored,  bleached  or  col- 
ored. 

Hosiery 

Laces  and  linen  gimps 

Embroidered  handkerchiefs  and  other  em- 
broideries on  linen. 

Mixed  fabrics,  flax  and  hemp  predominat- 
ing in  weight. 


PURE  JUTE  FABRICS. 

Pure  jute  fabrics,  showing  in  warp  and 
woof,  in  the  .space  of  5 square  millimeters, 
after  division  of  the  total  by  2 : 

Unbleached,  3 threads  or  less 

Unbleached,  4 and  5 threads  

Unbleached,  6,  7,  and  8 threads 

Unbleached,  more  than  8 threads  . . . 

The  same,  bleached  or  dyed,  3 threads  . . j 
Bleached  or  dyed,  4 and  5 threads. . . ! 
Bleached  or  dyed,  6,  7,  and  8 threads  [ 
Bleached  or  dyed,  more  than  8 threads  J 
(Threads  are  to  be  counted  according  to 
the  rules  heretofore  prescribed  for  the  tis- 
sues or  hemp  or  flax.) 

Carpets  of  jute,  sheared  or  not 

Mixed  fabrics,  principally  jute 


Frcs. 


Ots. 
620. 00 

900.  00 

850.  00 
3,  500.  00 
1, 700. 00 


....do 

do 

do 

do 

do 


Fabrics  of  phormium  tenax,  abaca,  and 
other  vegetable  fibers  not  mentioned. 

COTTON  FABRICS. 

Fabrics  of  cotton,  pure,  unbleached  : 

Weighing  11  kilos  or  more  to  the  100 
square  meters  and  containing  in  warp 
and  woof  in  the  space  of  5 square 
millimeters — 

30  threads  or  less 


365 


31  threads  or  more  

Weighing  from  7 to  11  kilograms — 

35  threads  or  less 

36  threads  to  43  threads 

44  threads  and  over  

Weighing  from  5 to  7 kilograms — 

27  threads  and  less 

28  to  35  threads  

36  to  43  threads  

44  threads  and  over 

Weighing  from  3 to  5 kilograms — 

27  threads  or  less 

28  threads  to  35  threads 

36  threads  to  43  threads 

44  threads  or  more 

Weighing  less  than  3 kilograms  . . . 
Fabrics  of  pure  cotton,  bleached 


112  francs  in 
the  aver- 
age. 

132  francs  in 
the  aver- 
age. 


180.  00 


Hot  given  in 
detail. 

...  do 


do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


62.  00 

100. 00 

95.  00 
125.  00 
250.  00 

100.  00 
145.  00 
235.  00 
300.  00 

230.  00 
300.  00 
410.  00 
625.  00 
’WO.  00 
Same  duty  as 
on  the  un- 
bleached, 
increase  d 
by  15  per 
cent. 

*As  the  estimated  value  of  cotton  fabrics  is  not  given  for  each  kind  in  the  table  of  customs  valua- 
tions, the  approximate  ad  valorem  duty  on  this  class  of  goods  has  been  obtained  by  dividing  the  total 

amount  of  duty  collected  upon  them  at  their  importation  into  France  by  their  total  value,  as  estimated 
at  the  custom-houses.  The  result  was  as  follows: 

Duty  on  cotton  tissues,  unbleached  and  bleached •. 17.  0 per  cent. 

Duty  on  cotton  tissues,  dyed 17.4  per  cent. 

Duty  on  cotton  tissues,  printed 18. 2 per  cent. 


Frcs.  Gts. 

149.  00 

174.  00 

124. 00 

495.,  00 

496.  00 

Duties  on  linen 
or  hemp  fab- 
rics accord- 
ing to  kind. 


Per  100  kilos. 

16. 00 

do 

28.  00 

— do 

30.  00 

— do 

Same  duty  as 

linen  fabrics. 

— do 

18.  50 

— do 

38.  00 

— do 

43.  00 

- . do 

Same  duty  as 

linen  fabrics. 

. . . do 

25.  00 

...  do 

Same  duty  as 

purejute'fab- 

rics. 

. . do 

11. 0 


.do 

do 

.do 

do 

.do 

.do 

do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

do 

.do 

do 


11.0 


14.0 


618  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Artioles. 


Customs 

■valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


If 
ll 
,2 
® a 


367 


368 


369 


370 


371 


372 


374 

375 


376 

377 


378 

379 


380 


cotton  YABN8— continued. 

Fabrics  of  pure  cotton,  dyed  in  Turkey  red. 


Frcs.  Cts. 
— do 


.do 


Fabrics  of  pure  cotton  prints  on  other 
ground  than  Turkey  red  are  liable  to  the 
duties  on  un  bleached  fabrics,  according 
to  sort,  augmented  as  follows : 

For  linings  (100  meters  long  by  not  do 

more  than  1 meter  wide). 

For  other  prints  (100  meters  long  by  do 

not  more  than  1 meter  wide),  of  1 or  2 
colors. 

For  other  prints  (100  meters  long  by  do 

not  more  than  1 meter  wide),  from  3 
to  6 colors. 

For  all  other  prints  (100  meters  long  by  do 

not  more  than  1 meter  wide),  or  7 or  i 
more  colors. 

(When  the  width  of  the  goods  exceeds  | 

1 meter,  the  discriminating  duty  for  the  i 
print  shall  be  proportionally  increased.) 

Fabrics  of  pure  cotton  printed  upon  Tur- 
key-red ground  shall  pay,  in  addition 
to  the  rates  of  duty  levied  upon  un- 
bleached tissues:  1.  60  francs  per  100 

kilograms.  2.  The  additional  duty  ap- 
plied to  other  printed  tissues. 

Velvets,  imitation  of  silk: 

Unbleached 

Dyed  or  printed 

Velvets,  other  (cords,  moleskins,  &c.) : 

Unbleached 

Dyed  or  printed 

Tissues  manufactured  in  all  or  in  part  of 
colored  threads. 


do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


Brillauts,  raw,  unbleached,  or  figured 


Piques,  covers,  quilts,  and  reps : 

Weighing  more  than  18  Kilograms  to 
the  100  meters  square. 

Weighing  18  kilograms  or  less 

Dimities,  damasks,  and  table-cloths,  un- 
bleached. 

Guipure  lace,  for  furniture,  unbleached  . . 
(The  foregoing  articles  [brill  antes, 
piques,  &c.],  if  bleached  or  dyed,  shall 
be  liable  to  the  duty  on  unbleached 
goods,  augmented  by  the  duty  levied 
upon  bleached  or  dyed  tissues.) 

Quilts,  blankets — 

Hosiery  (cotton  or  chintz  thread) : 

Gloves  

Other,  cut  and  seamless 

Other,  finished 

Trimmings 

Ribbons,  of  pure  cotton  

Ribbons,  mixed  with  wool,  cotton  predom- 
inating. 

Tulle,  coarse-spindle,  seven  stitches  or 
more  to  the  centimeter  square. 

Tulle,  fine-spindle,  seven  stitches  or  more 
to  the  centimeter  square. 


1, 175. 00 


490.  00 


520. 00 
520.  00 


.do 


.do 

.do 


.do 


.do 

.do 

.do 


570  00 


2, 000.  00 


1,  350.  00  - 


2,  000. 00  < 


.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


Frcs.  Cts. 

Duties  on  un- 
bleached, 
augmented 
60  francs 
per  100  kilo- 
grams. 


2.  50 

3.  75 


6. 25 

10.  00 


( 143. 00 

\ 174. 00 

C 100. 00 

\ 131. 00 

Same  as  un- 
bleached tis- 
sues, with 
the  addition 
of  60  per 
cent. 

Same  as  plain 
unbleached 
tissues,  with 
the  addition 
of  10  per 
cent.,  accord- 
ing to  th  e 
class. 

C 125. 00 
\ 180. 00 

114. 00 
185.  00 


68. 00 

1,  000.  00 
125.  00 
300.  00 
236.  00 
124.  00 
150.  00 

496.  00 

700.  00 


Pr.  ct. 
17.4 


18.2 


12.2 

15.0 

20.0 

26.6 


29.0 

22.0 


12.0 


16.0 


17.0 


27.0 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


619 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


•S* 


381 

382 


383 


384 


385 

386 

387 


389 


391 

392 


COTTON  YARNS— continued. 

Embroidery  made  by  hand,  and  gauze 
fancy  figured. 

Laces  and  blonde  laces,  machine-made, 
spun,  or  hand-made. 

Curtains,  embroidered,  muslin, not  framed : 
Weighing  less  than  10  kilos,  to  the 
100  meters  square. 

Weighing  10  kilos,  or  more;  and  cur- 
tains of  embroidered  muslins  framed, 
whatever  be  the  weight  to  the  100 
meters  square,  separate  or  in  piece. 
Curtains  of  tulle  application,  of  gren- 
adine, and  of  embroidered  tulle. 
Muslins,  embossed  or  crochet,  embroid- 
ered for  furniture  or  dress,  unbleached. 
Bleached  muslin,  embroidered  or  em- 
bossed, shall  be  subject  to  the  duty  on  the 
unbleached  augmented  by  15  per  cent. 
Embroideries  made  by  hand  of  machine. . . 

Lamp- wicks  and  plaited  candle-wicks 

Oil- cloth  tor  packing 

Oil-cloth  for  furniture,  hangings,  or  other 
use. 

Oil-cloth,  mole-skin  leather 

Cotton  mixed  goods,  most  cotton: 

Silk-stuff’s,  silk  and  cotton  flock 

Other  stuffs 

Trimmings  and  ribbons,  silk  and  cot- 
ton. 

Other  


Frcs.  Cts. 

6, 000. 00 

3, 000.  00 


2, 425.  00 
In  the  av- 
erage. 


5,  000.  00 
350.  00 
285. 00 
380.  00 


800.  00 


394 


395 

396 

397 

398 

399 

400  I 

401 

402  I 


Strips  in  thread,  or  yarn  twisted  forweav- 
ing. 

PURE  WOOL  FABRICS. 

Cloths,  cassimeres,  and  other  fabrics, 
pressed,  or  short  nap,  unpressed : 
Furniture  stuffs  weighing  over  400 
grams  to  the  meter  square. 

Moire  - - 

Other  stuffs : 

Weighing  400  grams  or  less  to  the 
meter  square. 

Weighing  from  401  to  550  grams 

Weighing  more  than  500  grams 

Carpets,  Axminster: 

Looped,  uncut  

Velvet,  finished 

Carpets,  Persian 

Carpets,  J&cquard,  chenille  and  others 

Hosiery,  pure  wool  and  mixed : 

Gloves  and  loose  garments 

Other,  cut,  seamless 

Other,  proportioned,  or  with  foot  pro- 
portioned. 

Trimmings,  ribbons 

Caps,  fez,  red  caps 

Tapestry 

Shawls,  embossed  or  worked,  not  Indian 
Cashmere. 

Laces 

Velvets  of  wool  for  upholstery 

Bolting  cloth,  seamless 

Blankets 

List  shoes  and  slippers 

List  of  cloth  


1, 000. 00 


1,  700.  00 


1,  020.  00 


2,  200.  00 

1,  500.  00 
1.  50 
6, 100.  00 


2,  000.  00 
1,  700.  00 
1,  540.  00 
640.  00 
800.  00 


-do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


.do 

do 


Frcs.  Ots. 
620.  00 


495. 00 


.do 

do 

-do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


300. 00 

600. 00 


900.  00 
360. 00 


800. 00 

74.00 

8.  00 

30. 00 

30.  00 

372.  00 
124.  00 
372. 00 


.do 


Per  100  kilos. 

...do 


. .do 

. do 
..do 

f.do 
1 ..do 
) ..do 
(...do 

f ..do 
j ..do 
1 ..do 


. - do 

Per  piece  — 
Per  100  kilos . 
...do 


do 

..do 

do 

...do 
...do 
. . .do 


Same  duty  as 
on  pure  cot- 
ton fabrics. 
50. 00 


124.00 
75.  00 

211. 00 

186.  00 
161. 00 

74. 00 

99.00 
186.  00 
124.  00 

650.  00 
150.  00 
300.  00 

248.  00 
0.  35 
620.  00 
397.  00 

372.  00 
223. 00 
198.  00 
87.  00 

87. 00 


Pr.  ct. 

10.0 


16.0 


9.0 


Free. 


16.0 

21.0 

3.0 

8.0 


21.0 


12.4 


11.0 


12.0 

18.0 

12.0 


11.0 

18.0 

20.0 

10.0 


18.0 

13.0 

13.0 

13.0 

11.0 


620 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


403 


404 


405 


406 

406 


407 


408 


Articles. 


409 


410 


MIXED  WOOL  FABRICS. 

Cloths,  casimeres,  and  other  pressed  goods, 
cotton  warp,  short  nap,  mostly  wool,  and 
weighing  to  the  square  meter : 

200  grams 

201  to  300  grams 

301  to  400  grams 

401  to  550  grams 

551  to  700  grams 

More  than  700  grams 

Fabrics,  warp,  of  silk  flock,  mostly  wool 

Carpets  of  wool  mixed  with  other  pred- 
ucts, regardless  of  proportions  of  mixt- 
ure. 

Other  fabrics,  mostly  wool 

Fabrics,  alpaca,  lama,  vicuna,  sheen,  yack, 
and  camel's  hair,  pure  or  mixed  with 
other  filaments. 

Fabrics  in  goat’s  hair,  pure  or  mixed, 
mostly  goat's  hair: 

Cashmere  shawls,  long,  made  by  hand. 
Cashmere  shawls,  square,  hand-made.. 
Scarfs,  trimmings,  fringes,  &c.,  hand- 
made. 

Frame-manufactured  shawls,  uniform, 
embroidered,  embossed,  and  plain 
goods. 

Other  fabrics  in  hair,  pure  or  mixed  with 
other  filaments,  but  mostly  hair. 

Fabrics  in  horsehair  (trimmings  and  other), 
pure  or  mixed,  but  mostly  horsehair. 

TISSUES  OF  SILK,  AND  SILK  WASTE. 

Foulards,  crepe,  tulle,  hosiery  trimmings, 
and  laces  in  pure  silk. 

Hosiery  and  trimmings  in  silk  flock,  pure, 
bleached  or  not,  dyed  or  printed. 

Silk  flock  for  furniture,  weighing  250  grams 
to  the  square  meter. 

Of  silk  mixed  with  silk  flock 


Customs 

valuation. 


Free.  Gts. 


1,200. 00 
in  the  aver- 
age. 


Units. 


Per  100  kilos 


Of  silk  or  silk  flock  mixed  with  other  tex- 
tiles, the  silk  or  silk  flock  preponderating. 

Trimmings  or  laces,  in  silk  or  silk  flock, 
with  gold  and  silver. 

Trimmings  or  laces,  in  silk  or  silk  flock, 
with  half  fine  or  false  gold  or  silver. 

Ribbons,  velvet,  silk  or  silk  flock,  pure  or 
mixed  with  other  textiles,  the  silk  or 
silk  flock  preponderating. 

Ribbons,  not  velvet,  silk  or  silk  flock,  pijre 
or  mixed  with  other  material,  the  sills  or 
silk  flock  preponderating. 

Clothing,  underclothing,  and  other  articles 
in  goods,  made  up  either  in  whole  or 
part. 


PAPER  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF.  (a) 

Paper,  fancy,  colored,  marbled,  figured, 
covered  or  not,  with  some  metal. 

Other,  all  kinds 

Pasteboard : 

In  sheets 


200.1 00 


10,  000.  00 

225. 00 

2, 100. 00 


9,  000  00 


10, 000  00 
10, 000  00 
10, 000  00 
6,  500  00 

4,  500  90 


300.  00 
130.  00 


do 

.do 


Duty. 


Frcs. 


Ots. 


Per  piece 

Per  100  kilos . 

do 


do 

do 


per  100  kilos. 

. ..,do 

....do 


....do 

do 

. . do 
do 

do 

— do 


Per  100  kilos . 

do 

do  


211. 00 
174.  00 
136.  00 
99.  00 
74.  00 
50.  00 
297.  00 
Same  duties 
as  those  on 
pure  wool. 

— do 

Same  as  tis- 
sues of  wool, 
pure. 


30.  00 
20. 00 
1, 000. 00 


1, 000.  00 

37.  00 
496.  00 


Free. 

248  00 
186  00 

Same  duty  as 
fabrics  of 
pure  silk 
nock. 

372  00 

1,  488  00 
434  00 
620  00 

496  00 


Duty  on  such 
fabrics  as 
may  be  the 
heaviest 
taxed,  fur- 
ther aug- 
mented by 
10  per  cent. 


25.  00 
11.00 
IT.  00 


■§! 

ag 


Pr.  ct. 


10.0 


15.0 

10.0 


17.0 

24.0 


3.0 


3.7 

15.0 
4.3 

10.0 

10.0 


8,0 

12.0 

18.0 


a All  paper  and  manufactures  of  paper  mentioned  and  embraced  in  this  section,  in  ndditiofi  to  the 
duties  herein  fixed,  shall  pay  the  internal-revenue  tax. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 
Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


621 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


’S'S 

fl  © 
c *4 

w * 


411 

412 


413 

414 


415 

416 

417 

418 


419 


420 


421 

422 

423 

424 


425 

426 

427 

428 

429 

430 

431 

432 

433 


434 


437 


PAPER  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF  (a)— COnt’d. 

Molded  (papier-mach6)  

Boxes,  covered  with  white  or  colored 
paper. 

Albums,  scrap-books,  and  other  works 
of  pasteboard,  decorated  with  paint- 
ing stuffs,  wood,  straw,  common 
metal. 

Books  (ft)  

Engravings,  cuts,  lithographs,  photo- 
graphs, and  drawings  of  all  kinds,  on 
paper. 

Geographical  or  sea  charts  and  maps 

Music,  engraved  or  printed 

Labels  and  cards,  engraved  or  colored.  — 

Playing  cards  . 

(Cards  for  childrens’  plays  pay  the 
same  duty  as  toys.) 

Conduits  and  pipes  made  from  asphaltated 
paper. 

SKINS  AND  FURS,  DRESSED  OR  MANU- 
FACTURED. 

Skins,  dressed : 

Japanned,  patent  and  morocco 

Of  sheep,  dyed 

Other,  dyed  • 

Other,  of  goat,  sheep,  lamb 

Other,  not  denominated 

Boots 

Gaiters  for  men  and  women 

Shoes  

Straps  for  wooden  shoes 

Gloves,  lamb  or  calf,'  merely  sewn 

Gloves,  lamb  or  calf,  stitched  . 

Gloves,  kid  or  doe,  merely  sewn 

Gloves,  kid  or  doe,  stitched 

Saddlers’  work,  fine  (other  than  saddles) . . 

Saddles,  for  men 

Saddles,  for  women 

Harness  goods 

Leat  her  belting,  endless,  for  machines 

Leather  pipes  and  conduits 

Trunks,  of  wood,  card  board,  covered  with 
leather. 

Morocco  leather,  soft 

Morocco  leather,  hard  

Other  manufactures  of  skins  or  leather 

Skins  prepared  or  in  pieces,  sewn,  with 
the  exception  of  the  following: 

1.  Seal-skins 

2.  Seals  and  blue-backs 

3.  Minever,  chinchilla,  squirrel,  dressed 

whole,  or  in  strips  sewn  together. 

4.  Hamster  and  white  rabbit  ..  

5.  Astrakans,  wavy  or  curled,  in  skins 

or  otherwise. 

6.  White  hares,  dressed  whole,  or  in 

strips  sewn  together. 

7.  Goat-skins 

Skins,  common,  made  up  and  worked 

Skins,  fine,  marie  up  and  worked 


Frcs. 


Gts. 

Frcs.  Gts. 

150.00 

Per  100  kilos. 

11.00 

200.  00 

do 

36.00 

650.  00 

— do 

70.00 

Free 

Free 


500.  00 


.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


Free 

Free 

11.00 

Prohibited. . 


.do 


1,  900.  00 
1,  250. 00 
1,  800.  00 
480.  00 
1,  700.  00 
8.  50 


1,  000.  00 

12.  00 

1,  600.  00 
75.  00 
450. 00 


do 

do 

do  

do 

do 

Pair 

...do 

— do 

Per  100  kilos. 

{Per  dozen . . . 

..do 

..do 

. .do 

Per  100  kilos  . 

C Each 

\ ..do  

Per  100  kilos. 

do 

do 

do 


4,  800. 00 


( ..do  ... 
£ ..do  ... 
. . .do  . . . 
Per  kilo 


MANUFACTURED  OF  METALS. 


Works  in  gold,  silver,  aluminium,  plati- 
num and  other  precious  metals. 


4,  000  00 
gold 
900  00 
silver 


•Per  1 kilo. 


1.00 


74.  00 
56.  00 
74.  00 
10.  00 
50.  00 
2.  00 

1.  35 
75 

62.  00 
1.  00 

1.50 

2.  00 

2.50 

200.  00 

10.  00 
12.  00 
5a  oo 
62.  00 
62.  00 
74.  00 

200.  00 
150.  00 
100.  00 
1.00 


1.60 
5.  00 


5,  00  J 


Pr.  ct. 
7.0 
18.0 

11.0 


6.5 


4.0 

5.0 

4.0 

2.0 
3.0 
2.5 


6.0 

12.0 

12.0 

16.0 

11.0 


3.0 


12.0 


*0.8 

+1.2 


& Books  reprinted  iu  any  foreign  country  from  French  editions  are  prohibited. 

* Gold  articles,  t Silver  articles. 


8 

U 

o 

£_ 

438 

439 

440 

441 

442 

443 

444 

445 

446 

447 

448 

449 

450 

451 

452 

453 

454 

455 

456 

457 

458 

459 

460 

461 

462 

463 

464 

465 

466 

467 

468 

569 

470 

471 

*r 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


*8* 


MANUFACTURES  OF  meats— continued. 

Works  gilded  or  silvered  by  plating,  mer- 
cury or  electro-chemical  processes : 

Imitations  of  jewelry 

Other  articles 


Frcs.  Ot8. 


4,  000  00 


Watch  cases,  separate,  goM — 

Watch  cases,  separate,  silver  or  common 
metal. 

Watches,  in  gold  cases 

Watches,  in  silver  cases 

vv  atches,  in  common  metal  cases. . 

Movements  (without  cases),  gilded,  nick- 
eled, or  finished. 

Movements,  others  (without  cases),  fin- 
ished or  not  finished. 

Unfinished  parts  and  materials  of  watch- 
maker’s work. 

Clocks  for  furniture,  wood 

Clocks  for  furniture,  others 

Clocks  for  buildings 

Move  l ents  of  clocks  and  time  pieces 

Musical  clocks 

Counters,  pedometers,  &c 

Coins : 

Gold  and  silver 

Copper  and  alloyed,  legally  current  in 
France. 

Copper  and  alloyed,  not  current  in 
France. 

ENGINES  AND  MACHINERY,  COMPLETE. 
Steam  machinery: 

Stationary 

For  the  navigation 

Locomobiles  and  locomotives 

Other  than  steam  machinery : 

Tenders  to  locomotives  .1 

Card  and  plate  setting  machine 

Carding  machines,  not  furnished  with 
cards. 

Machines  for  cleaning,  scutching,  and 
cutting  the  flax,  wool,  cotton,  anu  other 
textile  substances. 

Spinning  machines 

Weaving  machines 

Bobinet  machines 

Paper-making  machines 

Printing  machines 

Agricultural  machines,  not  including 
motors. 

Steam  boilers,  shee  t iron,  cylindrical  or 
spherical,  with  or  withoutheating  tubes. 
Steam  boilers,  sheet  iron,  tubular,  with 
tubes  of  wrought  iron,  copper,  or 
brass,  with  internal  furnaces,  and  all 
other  boilers  not  cylindrical  or  simply 
spherical. 

Steam  boilers  of  steel  sheet,  all  shapes  . 
Gasometers,  open  boilers,  furnaces,  and 
stoves,  iron,  or  cast  and  sheet  iron. 
Apparatus  in  copper  for  sugar  works, 
for  distilling  and  heating. 

Sewing  machines : 

Machine  tools  and  machines  not  men- 
tioned, containing — 

75  per  cent,  of  cast  iron,  or  more  . 

50  to  75  per  cent,  cast  iron 

Less  than  50  per  cent,  cast  iron. . . 
Detached  pieces  of  machinery : 

Sheets  and  fillets  for  cards — 

Furnished  with  teeth 

Not  furnished  with  toetk  


Per  1 kilo. . . 
...do 

Each 

...do 


110  00 
22  00 
22  00 


do 

do 

....do 
do 


4,  500  00 


300  00 
1,  000  00 


700  00 
20  00 


— do 

Per  100  kilo . 


— do 
— do 
— do 
— do 
...do 
Each 


Per  100  kilo 
...  do 


Frcs.  Ots. 


5.  00 
1.  00 

1. 20 

0.  50 

4. 50 

1. 50 
1. 00 
2.  50 

0. 20 

50. 00 

15.  00 
25.  00 
10.  00 
50.  00 
60.  00 

1.  00 

1.00 

0.  25 


Pr.  ct. 


*0. 12 
tO.  54 
J2.5 


Prohibited. 


.do 

.do 


.do 

.do 


.do  .. 
.do  .. 
.do  . 


.do 

.do 


25.  00 
8.  00 


10.  00 
6.  00 


6.  00 
10.00 
15.00 


50. 00 

20.  00 


4.0 

6.8 

4.5 


1.1 


5.0 

2.5 


8.5 

5.0 


do 

6.  00 

§ 6.0 

do 

12. 00 

§14.0 

do 

10.  00 

§ 6.0 

r 100  kilos. 

8.  00 

7.  o' 

.do 

6.  00 

8.0 

do 

10.00 

8.0 

.do 

6.  00 

4.4 

.do 

10.  00 

4.0 

do 

6.  00 

4.9 

.do 

10. 00 

3.7 

.do 

6.  00 

1.0 

.do 

6.  00 

3.7 

.do 

6.  00 

4.3 

.do 

8.00 

8.2 

.do 

12.00 

I 

II 


8.0 

9.4 


5.8 

2.9 


5.5 


8.2 


old  and  platiuum  art  icles.  t Silver  articles.  J Works  of  other  materials, 

heso  figures  have  been  obtained  by  dividing  the  total  amount  of  duties  collected  for  each  class  of 
j,  at  their  importations  into  France  by  the  values  given  to  them  in  the  custom  returns. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


G23 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


i 


473 

474 


475 

476 

477 

478 

479 


479^ 


480 

481 

482 

483 

484 

485 


487 

488 


489 


490 


491 

492 


493 


Articles. 


ENGINES  AND  MACHINERY,  &C.—  continued. 

Dents  or  teeth  of  reeds,  combs  and  mount- 
ings for  looms  (iron  or  copper). 

Separate  parts  of  machinery,  others,  made : 
Of  cast  iron,  polished,  filed,  and  adjusted 
Of  forged  iron,  polished,  filed,  and  ad- 
justed or  not,  of  whatever  weight  (in- 
cluding axletrees,  springs,  and  wheel 
bandages). 

Of  wrought  steel,  springs  for  carriages, 
wagons,  locomotives. 

Of  tilted  steel,  polished,  filed,  adjusted 
or  not  adjusted — 

Weighing  more  than  1 kilogram 

Weighing  1 kilogram  or  less  

Of  copper,  pure  or  alloyed  with  any 
other  metal. 

Tools,  handled  or  not,  in  pure  iron 

Tools,  iron  and  steel  

Tools,  steel  and  copper 

Printing  type,  hew 

Printing  type,  old,  out  of  use 

Cliches,  engraved  or  not ; 

Stereotypes  and  coins  engraved,  for  paper 
impressions. 

Wire  cloth  and  metallic  gauze: 

Iron  or  steel 

Copper  or  brass 

Wire  or  steel  work,  in  meshes,  under  0.02 
centimeters  wide. 

Others 

Needles,  sewing,  under5 centimeters  long. 
Needles,  sewing,  over  5 centimeters  long 
Knitting  needles,  and  other  analogous 
goods,  in  steel,  iron,  or  copper. 

Pins 

Fish-hooks 

Pens,  metallic,  other  than  gold  or  silver. . 
Cutlery,  common: 

Kitchen  and  butcher  knives,  common, 
tailor’s  scissors. 

Razors,  common - 

Other  

Cutlery,  fine 

Copper  cylinders  for  printing,  engraved  or 
not. 

Statues  in  metal,  natural  size 

Iron  castings  in  the  rough : 

Railroad  chairs,  fish-plates,  or  other 
castings  from  the  open  mold. 
Straight  cylindrical  pipes,  beams  and 
posts,  solid  of  hollow,  gas  retorts  or 
flues,  bars  and  joints,  solid,  fire 
grates  and  guards,  shafts,  machine 
frames,  and  other  objects  without 
ornaments  or  fittings. 

Kettles,  pans,  or  other  manufactures 
not  included  in  the  two  preceding 
classes. 

Iron  castings,  polished  or  turned  

Iron  castings,  tinned,  enameled  or  var- 
nished. 

Malleable  cast-iron  articles,  rough 

Wrought  iron:  Bent  frames,  ship’s  joists, 
ironsfor  carts  orwagons,  hinges,  handles, 
large  holts,  square  knees  and  other  irons 
for  doors  and  windows,  not  polished  nor 
turned,  vise-work,  bedsteads,  garden 
seats  and  furniture,  or  other  ware,  with 
or  without  accessory  ornaments  in  cast 
iron,  copper,  or  steel. 

Locks  and  padlocks  of  all  sorts,  hinge- 
joints  in  sheet  iron,  latches,  sliding  holts 
and  other  objects  made  of  cast  or  sheet 
iron,  turned,  polished,  or  filed,  for  furni- 
ture, doors,  or  windows. 


Customs 

valuation. 

Units. 

Duty. 

Estimated  ad 
valorem  duty. 

Frcs.  Gts. 

Frcs. 

Gts. 

Pr.  ct. 

Pqr  100  kilos. 

30 ‘60 

10.0 

do 

6 00 

6.8 

do - . 

10  00 

7.3 

do 

10  00 

do 

10  00 

\ 11.0 

do 

20  00 

. . . .do 

20  00 

7.0 

105. 00 

....do  

10.  00 

10.0 

205. 00 

do 

15.  00 

7.4 

350.  00 

do 

20.  00 

5.7 

370.  00 

do 

28.00 

2.2 

100.  00 

do 

3.  00 

3.0 

25.00 

do 

8.  00 

0.3 

do  

Free  - 

290. 00 

do 

10.  00 

3.5 

830.  00 

do 

20. 10 

2.4 

) 

C 

10.  00 

> 70. 00 

do 

] 

> 13.0 

s 

l 

8.  00 

S 

■ 1 450.  00 

do 

248. 00 

17.0 

1,  100. 00 

do 

124.  00 

11.0 

300.  00 

do 

25.  00 

8.3 

425.  00 

do 

50.  00 

12.0 

1,  025.  00 

do 

50.  00 

5.0 

1,  000.  00 

— do 

100.  00 

10.0 

] 

\ 

125.  00 

I 

[ 2,  500.  00 

— do 

250.  00 

\ 12.0 

[ 

] 

375.  00 

I 

J 

1 

600.  00 

1 

350.  00 

do 

15.00 

3.4 

Free  , 

do 

3.  00 

...do 

3 75 

> 17.0 

1 

do 

4 50 

1 

J 

40.  00 

do 

6.  00 

15.0 

70.  00 

...  .do 

10. 00 

14.0 

125.  00 

do 

8.  00 

7.0 

40.  00 

— do 

8.  00 

20.0 

130. 00 

....do 

12.00 

9.2 

624 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY, 


Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


I i 


494 

495 


497 


499 


500 

501 


502 

503 


504 

505 


506 

507 


508  | 

509 


ENGINES  AND  MACHINERY,  &C.— continued. 

Anchors,  chains,  cables,  and  drags  in  the 
French  ports  and  roadsteads. 

Anchors,  chains,  and  cables,  others 

Nails,  machinery  made 

Nails,  hand  made 

Iron,  wood-screws,  eye-bolts,  ring-hooks: 
The  screw  having  a diameter  7 millime- 
ters or  less. 

The  screw  having  a diameter  over  7 mil- 
limeters. 

Iron  bolts  and  nuts 

Tubes  and  fittings,  iron,  butt-welded,  9 
millimeters  or  more  inside  diameter. 

The  same,  having  less  than  9 millimeters 
inside  diameter. 

Tubes  and  fittings,  iron,  lap-welded 

Iron  pipes  and  joinings  of  all  sorts 

Iron  household  ware,  and  other  articles  not 
mentioned,  polished  or  painted. 

The  same  tinned,  enameled,  or  varnished. . 

Steel  cables  made  from  steel  wire 

Steel  small  wares,  such  as  beads,  buckles, 
brooches,  thimbles. 

Steel  household  wares,  and  other  pure  steel 
goods  not  mentioned. 

Cast  iron  and  iron : 

Not  polished,  the  weight  of  the  iron 
being  less  than  half  of  the  whole. 

Not  polished,  the  weight  of  the  iron  not 
being  less  than  half  of  the  whole. 
Polished,  enameled,  or  varnished,  with  ■ 
ornaments  in  iron,  copper, brass,  orsteel. 
Copper  ware,  pure  or  alloyed  with  zinc  or 
tin,  smiths’  work. 

Copper  ware,  pure  or  alloyed  works  of  art,  j 
ornaments,  &c.  ■ i 

Lead,  pipes  and  other  manufactures  of — ; 
Tin,  pure  or  alloyed  with  antimony ; ves- 
sels, pots,  and  other  ware. 

Zinc,  manufactures  of,  all  kinds 

Nickel  alloyed  with  copper  or  zinc  (Ger- 
man silver),  manufactures  of. 

ARMS  AND  AMMUNITIONS. 


Frcs. 


Cts. 


Per  100  kilos 


Frcs. 


50.00  ....do 
50.00  ...do 


.do 

.do 


do 


150.  00 


..do 

..do 

..do 


.do 

.do 

do 

.do 


.do 

do 


500. 00 
2,  500.  00 


85.  00 
1,  050.  00 


do 


do 

....do 


650.00  ...  do 
1,00^00  j do 


Cts.  1 Pr.  ct. 
1.25  1 


20.  00 


20. 00 


26.  0 


12.0 


15.0 


1.2 

10.0 


510 

511 


I 

512  ; 

513 


514 


515  | 

516 


517 


Arms  of  war  , Per  100  kilos. 


Side  arms,  not  military. 

Fire  aims,  not  military,  muzzle  loading  . . . j | 


1,000.00  ...  do 
1,875.04;;*; 
1,500.00  do 


800.  00 


do 


do 

— do 


Fire  arms,  not  military,  breech  loading 
Gun  bairels,  rough  and  unpolished,  not 
military. 

Gunpowder 

Percussion  caps : 

I'or  military  use  . 

For  sporting  uses 

Cartridges : | . 

For  military  uses do 

For  shooting  clubs 400. 00  do 

For  sporting  uses  (filled) do 

For  sporting  uses  (empty) 400.  00  ...  do 

Projectiles  for  military  uses do 

Slow  matches  for  mines : 

Ordinary i C do 

Covered  with  linen  ribbon S.  350.  00V do 

Covered  with  india  rubber ) ( do 

Fire-works 375. 00  do 

FURNITURE. 


Prohibited  .. 
40. 00 
240.  00 
360. 00 
60.  00 


Prohibited 


Prohibited  .. 
60.  00 

Prohibited  .. 

25. 00 
Prohibited  .. 
60.  00 

Prohibited 


518  Furniture  in  bent  wood,  whether  mounted  Per  100  kilos. 

| or  not. 

519  Furniture,  other: 

Seats,  without  carving,  inlaying,  or  do 

ornaments  of  copper  and  in  common 
Wood. 

Seats,  in  cabinet  wood,  without  carv-  do 

ing,  inlaying  or  ornaments  of  copper. 


7.5 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


625 


Inclosure  No.  1— Continued. 


5]  9 


520 


Articles. 


FURNITURE— continued. 

Furniture,  other: 

Seats,  in  any  kind  of  wood,  with  carv- 
ing, inlaying  or  ornaments  of  copper 

Furniture,  other,  not  seats  or  chairs : 

Veneered,  but  neither  carved  nor  in- 
laid, nor  ornamented  with  copper. 

Veneered,  carved,  inlaid,  ornamented 
with  copper. 

Heavy  common  furniture 

Heavy  furniture  in  cabinet  wood,  with 
or  without  moldings,  but  neither 
carved  nor  inlaid,  nor  ornamented 
with  copper. 

Heavy  furniture  (not  chairs)  in  fine  wood, 
carved,  inlaid,  and  ornamented  with 
brass. 

Furniture,  stuffed  and  covered,  all  sorts. . 


521  | Frames  and  moldings,  in  wood  and  gilt 

wood. 

WOOD  MANUFACTURES. 

. 

522  Barrels,  empty,  new : 

i With  wooden  hoops  

With  iron  hoops 

523  i Brooms,  common 

524  Pieces  of  frame  work,  wheelwright’s  work, 

rough,  cut  out,  or  sawed,  or  shaped. 

525  Button  molds 

526  Wooden  shoes,  common 

Wooden  shoes,  painted,  varnished,  or  fur- 

lined. 

527  Boxes  in  white  wood 

528  Planks,  friezes,  and  strips,  of  parquet, 

I . planed  and  grooved : 

In  oak  or  hard  wood 

In  pine  or  soft  wood 

529  Bushel-maker’s  ware 

530  Other  manufactures  of  wood 


MUSICAL  INSTRUMENTS. 


531 


Pianos,  upright 

Pianos,  long 

Harmoniums  and  harmoni  flutes,  with  or 
without  pedals,  weighing — 

Less  than  60  kilograms 

From  CO  to  120  kilograms 

120  kilograms  or  upward 

Church  organs,  with  pipes,  weighing — 
Less  than  4,000  kilograms  (packing  in- 
cluded). 

4,000  to  10,000  kilograms 

10.001  to  20,000  kilograms 

20.001  kilograms  and  upwards 

Hand-organs,  with  or  without  figures,  hav- 
ing several  airs. 

Sihall  hand-organs 

Hurdy-gurdies,  vielles 

Harps 

Violins,  altos,  guitars,  mandolins,  viols, 
zitliars,  eolian  harps. 

Violincellos 

Counter-bass  viols 

Small  flutes,  flageolettes,  and  musettes : 

With  one  key  and  ocarinas 

Flutes: 

With  one  key  

With  several  keys 


Customs 

valuation. 


Frcs.  Ots. 


"Units. 


Per  100  kilos. 

— do 

...do  


.do 

.do 


do 


15.00  ---.do 

20.00  ....do 
..do 
..do 


330.  00 
50.  00 


70.  00 


14.  00< 

30.  00* 
60.  00 


600.  00 

2,  000.  00 


....do 

do 

do 


do 


do 

do 

. ...do 
....do 


Each 
do 


.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

do 

.do 

.do 


Duty. 


Frcs . 


Gts. 
15.  00 


Pr.  ct. 


10.  00 

35.  00  ! I 

5.  00  II 
10.00  J 


18.  00 


15  per  cent, 
above  the 
foreg  o i n g 
duties  ac- 
cording to 
the  class  of 
goods. 

15.00 


Free 

Free 


2.  oo; 

2.50 


Per  dozen 


Each. 
— do 


13.  00 
12.  00 
25.00 

2.00 


2.  oo; 
1. 00' 
4.  00' 
7.  00 


50.  00 
75.00 


10.  00 
20.  00 
30.  00 

100.  00 

250.  00 
400.  00 
500.  00 
15.  00 

2.  00 

3.  00 
50.  00 

2.  00 

4.  00 

8.  00 

1. 20 

0. 20 
1. 00 


4. 3- 
7.0 


13.0 


4.0 

24.0 


3.0 


10.0 

13.0 

12.0 


8.4 

4.0 


S.  Ex.  72— -40 


I valorem  duty. 


626  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Inclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


© 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


© 


MUSICAL  instruments— -continued. 


531 


Free. 


Hautboys,  clarionets,  English  horns,  bag- 
pipes. 

| Ophicleids,  bombardons,  and  helicons 

! Bassoons,  saxophones,  sarussophones,  and 
brass  instruments,  with  6-finger  kej  s. 

. Bugles  and  military  bugles 

Horns  and  cornets,^  brass  or  horn 

Hunting  horns  and  trumps 

Three-keyed  bugles,  bugles  with  keys  and 
stops,  neohorns,  harmony  trumpets,  sax- 
horns, trombones,  buccins,  and  bugles. 

! Chinese  cymbals,  large  and  small  drums, 

[ chimes,  kettle-drums. 

I Cymbals 

i Tamborines,  triangles,  castanets  (pair), 
metallophones. 

I Tamtams  and  Chinese  gongs 

Accordions  and  concertinas 

i Harmonicas  (mouth),  in  wood  or  metal, 
jews  harps. 

; Musical  boxes 

Metronomes 

Apparatus  for  mechanical  playing  of 
| pianos  and  harmonicons. 

; Pedalers 

Bows,  finished  or  not,  plain 

Bows,  finished  or  not,  richly  incrusted j 

Reeds,  mouth-pieces  and  beaks  for  wind 
instruments. 

Instrument  cases  of  all  sorts J 


Detached  portions  of  musical  instruments, 
not  otherwise  denominated. 


MANUFACTURES  IN  MATTING,  BASKET- WORK, 
OR*  CORDAGE. 


CtS. 


Frcs. 


Each  


Cts. 

2. 00 


Pr.  ct. 


do 

do 


4.00 

12.50 


do  .. 
do 

do  .. 
do 


0. 80 
0.  30 
1.60 
3.  50 


do  . 

A pair 
Each. . 


2.  50 

1. 50 
.50 


do 

.do 

do 


3.00  

1.00  

Duty  on  toys 


Per  100  kilos . 


Dutyonwatch- 

movements. 


Each 

Per  100  kilos . 


40. 00  ; 


...do 

Each 

— do  

Per  dozen 


40.00 
0.  30 
0.  60 
0.  50 


Duties  on 
leather,  card- 
board, &c.,  ac- 
cording to  ! 
kind. 

Duties  on  wood 
and  metal  [ 
works,  accord- 
ing to  the 
substance  of  \ 
which  they 
may  be  com- 
posed. 


532 

533 


534 


535 

536 

637 


Plaits  or  mattings  of  three  strands  in  es- 

Per 100  kilos . 

0.50  j 

parto  grass,  for  the  manufacture  of  cord-  j 
age 

Straw  bark,  or  matweed  plaitings,  of  more 

170.  00 

...  do  

1.00 

than  three  strands,  and  plaits  of  white 
wood,  coarse,  for  mats. 

Straw  bark,  or  matweed  plaitings,  of  more 

775.00 

do 

10.00  i 

than  three  strands,  and  plaits  of  white 
wood,  coarse,  for  hats. 

Straw  bark,  or  matweed  fine  plaitings, 

400.  00 

do 

1 

20.  00 

more  than  three  strands,  or  fine  white 
wood  plaitings. 

Mattings,  cocoanut,  aloes,  or  matweed 

do 

Duties  on  jute 
mattings. 

5. 00 

Chinese  mattings 

135. 00 

1 

do 

Pith  of  bamboo  or  rush  rattan  and  reeds  of 

( ..do  

10.00 

1 3 or  more  millimeters  in  diameter,  round - 

1 ed  on  draw  plates. 

The  same,  prepared  or  spun,  less  than  3 j 
millimeters  in  diameter. 

Rushes,  rattans,  reeds,  prepared,  rounded 

l 190. 00 

1 

) ..do  

20.  00 

J 

190.  00 

1 

.,..do 

20.  00 

I or  not,  varnished  or  not,  spun  rattan. 
Basket-work,  in  crude  twigs 

75.  00 

do 

5.  00 

| Basket-work,  in  strips  of  wood 

110.  00 
300.  00 

9.  00 

Basket-work,  fine  willows  or  straw,  mixed 

do 

45.  00 

or  not  with  textile  fibers. 

I Straw'  hats  (sewn  and  overlapped,  untrim- 

2,  800.  00 

do 

250.00 

| med). 

0.  6 
1.  1 
5.  0 

5 » 
3 V 

8 0 

8 0 

6 7 
8 2 

15  0 

9.0 


I Estimated  ad 
J valorem  duty. 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


627 


lnclosure  No.  1 — Continued. 


Articles. 


Customs 

valuation. 


Units. 


Duty. 


S 


as 

33,3 


538 


MANUFACTURES  IN  MATTING,  BASKET-WORK, 

or  cordage — continued. 

Hats  of  barks,  matweed,  palm  fibers,  un- 
trimmed, fine. 

The  same,  common 

Hats  of  vegetable  substances,  of  every  de- 
scription, trimmed. 

Cordage,  fine  dressed,  of  matweed,  linden, 
or  rushes. 

Cordage,  other,  measuring,  by  kilogram 
of  thread  (plain),  500  meters  and  under. 

Cordage,  other,  measuring,  by  kilogram 
of  thread  (plain),  from  501  to  2,000  meters. 

The  same,  measuring,  by  kilogram  of 
thread  (plain),  over  2,000  meters. 


539  Fishing  nets 


Frcs. 


540 


541 

542 


543 

544 


545 

546 


547 


548 

549 

550 


WORKS  IN  VARIOUS  SUBSTANCES. 

Carriages,  weighing  125  kilograms  or  more. 

The  same,  weighing  less  than  125  kilo- 
grams, including  velocipedes. 

Vehicles  for  commerce,  agriculture,  &c., 
on  springs. 

The  same,  not  on  springs 

Railway  cars : 

For  railroad  with  ordinary  tracks, 
first-class  carriages. 

For  railroad  with  ordinary  tracks,  sec- 
ond and  third  class  carriages. 

For  railroad  with  ordinary  tracks, 
freight  cars. 

For  railroad  with  narrow  tracks,  pas- 
senger carriages. 

For  railroad  with  narrow  tracks, 
freight  cars. 

Carriages  for  tramways  with  ordinary 
tracks. 

Carriages  for  tramways  with  narrow 
tracks. 

Gravel  cars 

Steam  or  sailing  vessels,  in  wood  or 
iron  equipped. 

Halls  of  sea-going  vessels,  in  wood  or 
iron. 

River  crafts,  all  sizes,  in  wood 

River  crafts,  all  sizes,  in  iron 

Vessels  for  breaking  up,  in  wood 

The  same,  sheated  in  metal 

Apparatus  or  equipment  of  vessels  not 
mentioned : 

In  metal 


In  wood 


In  skins  or  leather 


In  tissues 


India-rubber  and  gutta-percha  goods : 

Pure,  or  mixed  with  other  substances . . 
Applications  on  stuffs  in  pieces,  or 
other  materials. 

Elastic  fabrics 

Shoes  and  boots  

Made-up  garments 

Felt,  adhesive,  for  sheathing  vessels  . 

Felt,  for  carpets  and  shoo  soles 

Felt,  for  machinery  and  pianos  


Cts. 
1,  600.  00 
2, 800.  00 
40.  00 
75. 00 
135.  00. 


800. 00 

1,000.00 

1,  500.  00 
500.  00 


100.  00 
600.  00 


Frcs. 


Per  100  kilos. 

...  do 

. . do 

...do 

...do  

— do 


Cts. 
150. 00 


41.00 


...do 


.do 

do 


.do 

.do 


110.  00 


220.  00 


40. 00 
250.  00 

180. 00 

150.  00 
300.  00 
25.  00 
40.  00 


do 


. . .do 


...do 

Gauge  tons 


— do 

...do 
. - do 
..  do 
. . .do 


Per  100  kilos. 


do 

.do 

.do 


- - do 

...do 


do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

do 


.001 

.00) 


50 
300.  00 

3.75 

18.  50 

22.  50 

Duties  on 
twisted  flax 
or  hemp 
thread. 

20.  00 


50.  00 

120.  00 


.001 
.00  5 


12.  00 

6 

16.  001 

11.  00 

9.  00  { 

20. 00  I 

10.  00  I 

J 

20.00 

25.00 

5.00 

2.00 

2.00 

10.  00 

40.  00 

0.  30 
. 0.75 


Duty  on  met- 
al, according 
to  kind  of 
metal. 

Duty  on  wood- 
en goods, 
others. 

Duty  on  leath- 
er goods, 
others. 
Duty  on  fab- 
rics, according 
to  the  kind  of 
fabrics. 

20.  00 
100.00 

200.  00 
60.00 
120. 00 
25.  00 
35.  00 
250.  00 


Pr.  ct. 
9.4 
10.0 
9.2 


10.0 
to  20.  0 


5.0 


14.0 


9.0 


10.4 


10.0 


10.2 

8.0 

11.0 

6.7 

13.0 

1.2 

1.9 


2.5 

10.0 


13.2 

12.0 


25.0 

5.8 


628  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


lnclomre  No.  1 — Continued. 


551 
551$ 

552 

553 

554 

555 

556 


557 

558 


563 


564 

565 

566 

567 

568 


570 


571 


Articles. 


WORKS  IN  VARIOUS  SUBSTANCES—  COIlt’d. 

India-rubber  and  gutta-percha  goods— 
Continued. 

Felt,  for  other  purposes 

Felt  cloth  in  pure  wool  for  furniture, 
clothing,  aDd  boots  and  shoes. 

Hats,  felt,  untrimmed 

Hats,  felt,  trimmed 

Hats,  wool 

Hats,  silk 

Coral,  cut,  unset 

Goods,  meerschaum  (with  or  without 


Customs 

valuation. 


Frcs. 


Cts. 
600.  00 


572 

573 


I 

I 

574 

575 


576 

577 


578 


570 


Genuine 

Imitation 

Strips  of  whalebone,  cut  and  prepared 

Corks,  50  millimeters  long  and  over 

Corks,  under  50  millimeters  long 

Other  manufactures  of  cork  wood 

Scientific  and  philosophical  apparatus  and 
instruments,  surgical,  mathematical, 
optical,  physical,  and  nautical. 
Spectacles,  eye-glasses,  magnifying 
glasses,  single  and  double  opera  glasses. 
Manufactures  of  ivory  and  shell : 

Combs 

Billiard  balls 

Piano  keys 

Cigar  cases  and  other  objects 

Articles  of  bone,  horn,  wood,  hard 
india-rubber,  ivory,  fictitious  tor-  ! 
toise  shell  not  otherwise  denom- 
inated. 

Fans  and  hand-screens  in  ivory,  tor- 
toise shell,  or  macro. 

The  same  in  other  materials 

Brushes,  common,  or  wood,  having 
vegetable  fibers  or  whalebone. 

The  same,  with  bristles  or  horsehair  . . 
Brushes,  fine  or  bone,  ivory  or  metal . . 
Buttons,  porcelain,  jet,  glass,  without 
setting. 

Buttons,  pierced  (for  pantaloons),  in 
metal,  alloy,  papier  machC,  cast  iron. 
Buttons,  in  glass  set,  molded  horn, 
corozzo,  buffalo  horn,  gilt  metal, 
silvered,  plated,  oxidized  or  nick- 
"eled,  covered  with  silk,  cloth,  or 
other  material. 

Buttons,  in  mother-of-pearl,  ivory,  or 
shell. 

Toys -- 

Matches,  imported  for  account  of  the  com- 
pany sole  lessee  of  the  monopoly  for  the 
sale  of  matches : 

In  wood 

In  other  material 

(The  importation  of  matches  by  private 
persons  is  prohibited.) 

Human  hair,  manufactured 

Millinery  goods,  especially  head-dresses, 

hats,  and  bonnets 

Artificial  flowers 

L mbrellas  and  parasols : 

Cotton 

Alpaca 

Silk 

Articles  composed  of  materials  subject  to 
various  duties,  not  specifically  set  down 
in  the  tariff  in  this  form,  shall  pay  the 
duty  on  that  portion  of  the  mixture  bear- 
ing the  heaviest  dues,  except  when 
such  portion  can  be  easily  separated,  or 
when  such  portion  merely  constitutes 

an  accessory  to  the  whole 

Objects  for  collections,  not  in  commerco. . 


20,  000.  00 
3,  000.  00 

500. 00 


Units. 


Per  100  kilos. 
do 


Per  piece 

— do 

— do 

...do 

Per  100  kilos . 


..do 

200.  00 

..do 

100.  00 

5 °‘7 

. .do 

12.  00 

0.4 

..do 

30.  00 

) 

. . do 

20. 00 

V 5.0 

. . do 

5.  00 

) 

..do 

Free 

1,  200. 00 


15,  000. 00 
9,  500. 00 


825. 00 

20,  500.  00 
15,  000. 00 

700. 00 


600.  00 


675.  00 


do 


do 

do 

do 

do 

do 


....do 

do 

..do 

..do 

..do 

..do 

..do 

..do 


..do 

Per  100  kilos 


} mooif;;^ 


3. 200.  00 

1. 200.  00 
1,  000.  00 

2.  50 
4.  50 
10.  00 


...do 


do 

do 


Per  piece 

. .do 

do 


Duty. 


Frcs.  Cts. 

35. 00 
Duty  on  cloth 

0. 40 
0.75 
0.35 
1.20 


Free 


150. 00 


625. 00 
625.  00 
625.  00 
1,  250.  00 
190.  00 


1,  250.  00 

300.  00 
37.  50 

75.  CO 
125.  00 
20.  00 

50.00 

150.  00 


350. 00 
60.  00 


12.  00 
20.  00 


Free 


Free . 
Free . 


0. 25 
0.  50 
1.25 


Free 


■8-s 

•sa 

e 2 

£ JO 

J®  «# 

W > 


Pr.  ct. 
5.8 


12.4 


4.2 

6.5 


23.0 

6.0 

20.0 

7.0 


6.0 
> to 
22.0 


I - 


10.0 

10.0 

12.5 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


629 


Statement  showing  the  customs  valuations  of  goods  entered  into  France  for  consumption 
during  the  year  1883,  the  specific  duties  collected  upon  these  goods,  and  the  computed  rela- 
tion between  the  specific  duties  to  the  value  of  articles  as  fixed  by  the  customs. 


Schedules  of  goods. 

Specific 
duties  col- 
lected. 

Customs 

valuations. 

Average  es- 
timated duty, 
ad  valorem 

Animal  matters  : 

Francs . 

Francs. 

Per  cent. 

Live  animals 

5, 916,  025 

220,  686,  921 

2.7 

Animal  products 

3, 380,  718 

1,  048,  781, 151 

0.3 

Fish 

1,  520,  956 

70,  346,  521 

2.2 

Raw  material  of  medicine  and  perfumery 

120,  742 

7,  383,  657 

1.6 

Hard  substances  for  carving 

120,217 

23,  402,  725 

0.5 

Total 

11,  058,  658 

1,  370,  600,  975 

0.8 

Vegetable  substances: 

Farinaceous  food 

7,  232,  257 

458,  704, 155 

1.6 

Fruits  and  seeds 

5,011,078 

258,  813,  999 

1.9 

Colonial  produce 

183,  794.  749 

272.  428,  965 

67.6 

Vegetable  oils  and  juices  

2,  407,  894 

104;  055,  933 

2.3 

Medicinal  plants 

100, 172 

13,  932,  236 

0.7 

Wood,  common 

81,  909 

217,  601,  820 
28  191,527 

0.0 

Wood,  exotic 

53,  359 

0.2 

Filaments,  stems,  and  fruit  for  manufacture 

125,  453 

305,  635,  645 

0.0 

Dyeing  and  tanning  stuffs 

50,  095 

17, 171,  996 
78,  695,  282 

0.3 

Sundry  produce  and  waste 

612, 579 

0.8 

Total 

199,469,545 

1,  755,  231,  558 

11.3 

Mineral  substances  : 

Stones,  oarths,  and  combustible  mineral  substances 

(especially  petroleum) 

35,  605,  817 

272,  558,  480 

13.0 

Metals 

9, 181,  435 

186,  479,  867 

4.8 

Total 

44,  787,  252 

459,  038,  347 

9.7 

Manufactures  : 

Chemicals 

1,  776, 402 

70,  453,  322 

2.5 

Dyes,  prepared • 

606,  281 

38,  093,  512 

1.6 

Colors  and  paints 

448, 129 

4,167,  787 

10.  1 

Various  compounds 

1,  372,  717 

13,  3.r0,  249 

10.3 

Beverages  

23,  910,  590 

418,  306,  890 

5.7 

Pottery , glass  and  crystal 

1,  574, 191 

19,  788,  083 

7.9 

Yarns  and  threads,  all  kinds 

5,  949,  669 

78,  829,  594 

7.5 

Fabrics,  all  kinds 

20,  906,  915 

216,  547,  371 

9.7 

Paper,  and  manufactures  of 

1,  625,  595 

34,  433,  034 

4.7 

Skins  and  furs,  dressed  and  manufactured 

1,446,  543 

49,  623,  240 

2.9 

Manufactures  of  metals 

9,  523, 495 

145,  450, 188 

6.6 

Arms,  powder,  and  ammunition 

483,  230 

3,  269,  772 

14.8 

Furniture  and  musical  instruments 

1,  095,  227 

18,  389,  582 

6.0 

Matting,  basket  work,  and  cordage 

471, 374 

28,  091,  869 

1.7 

Works  in  various  substances 

3, 268, 589 

80,  183,  417 

4.1 

Total 

74, 458,  947 

1,  218,  977,  910 

6.1 

630  REFORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Alphabetical  index  of  the  articles  specified  in  the  French  general  customs  tariff. 


Articles. 


Abaca  or  Manila  hemp 

Abaca  or  Manila  yarn 

Abaca  or  Manila  tissues 

Accordions 

Acetates 

Copper 

Iron 

Lead 

Potash 

Soda 

Acids: 

Arsenic 

Benzoic 

Boric 

Carbolic 

Citric 

G-allic 

Hydrochloric 

Nitric 

Oleic 

Oxalic 

Phosphoric 

Picric 

Stearic 

Sulphuric 

Tartaric • 

Agates 

Agricultural  machines 

Alabaster  and  manufactures  of 

Albumen 

Albums : 

Alcohols 

Alcohol,  amylic 

Alizarine 

Alkali,  volatile 

Almonds 

Aloes 

Alpaca,  hair  of  the 

Alpaca,  yarn  of 

Alpaca,  tissues  of 

Alpaca,  carded,  combed 

Alum 

Aluminate  of  soda 

Aluminium 

Aluminium,  manufactures  of 

Amber 

Ammoniac  and  salts  of 

Ammunitions 

Amomum 

Amylic,  alcohol 

Anchors 

Anchovies 

Aniline 

Anise  seed 

Animals,  living 

Animal  substances  for  perfumery  and 

medicines 

Antimony : 

Ore,  regulus,  and  sulphuret  of 

Liver  of 

Oxides  and  salts 

Apparatus : 

For  chemical  uses 

Scientific 

Apples  and  pears,  dried 

Argentan  (German  silver) 

Argentan  manufactures  of 

Argols 

Arms  

Arseniates  of  potash  and  soda 

Arsenic 

Arsenic,  sulphide  of 

Articles  of  fashion  

Articles,  not.  otherwise  specified,  com- 
posed of  two  or  more  materials . 


£2 


134 

339 

363 

531 


233 

233 

233 

233 

233 

218 
218 
218 
257 
218 
218 
218 
218 
218 
218 
218 
271 
218,  299 
218 
218 
162 
464 


303 

412 

313 

313 

272 

237 


112 
22 
347 
404 
343 
236 
235 
185 
437 
180 
229£ 
512 
93,  590 
234 
494 
45 
257 
82 
1 


207 

246 

.246 


467,  562 
560 
315 
205 

509 
256 

510 
238 
208 
255  | 
575  ; 


Articles. 


Ashes : 

Of  beet  root 

Blue  and  green... 
Gold  and  silver  . . 

Vegetable 

Asphaltum 

Asses 

Axles 

Axminster  carpets  . . 

B. 


Ballast,  iron 

Balls,  blue 

Balsams 

Barberry 

Barks : 

Fuster 

Lime  tree 

Mats  and  plaits  of 

Medicinal 

Peruvian  

Sumac 

Tan 

Barley,  grain  and  flour 

Barrels,  empty 

Basketmakers  ware 

Bassoons 

Beads,  glass — 

Bed  ticking,  cotton 

Beer  

Beet  root — 

Beet  root,  ashes  of — « 

Belts,  leather,  for  machines 

Benzine 

Berlin  blue 

Berries : 

For  dyeing  and  tanning 

Juniper - . 

Laurel  

Not  otherwise  specified — 

Beverages  

Bicarbonate  of  soda 

; Billiard  balls 

j Biscuits: 

Sea 

Sugar 

Bismuth 

Bitumen 

Black  bone 

Black  (color) 

Blacking 

Black  lead  (plumbago) . . 

Bladder,  fish 

Blankets : 

Cotton 

Woolen 

Blonde,  laces 

Blue,  Berlin 

Boards  for  floors 

Boats  and  hulls  of 

Boilers : 

Copper 

Steam 

Other 

Bolting  cloth 

Bolts  and  nuts,  iron 

I Bono  black 

Bones : 

Calcined 

Of  cattle 

Manufactures  of,  u.  o.  d 

j Bonnets,  wool 

Bonnets,  millinery  

Books  

Boots  and  bootees 


578  i Borax 


II 

S <D 
cs-a 
to** 


222 

• 282 
182 
221 
178 
3 

474 

393 


187 

263 

107 

143 

143 

136 

533 

116-533 

258 

143 

142 

68 

522 

536 

531 

332 

372 

310 

150 

222 

428 

257 

274 

145 

82 

82 

145 

307-314 

227 

565 

70 


178 

40 

278 

306 

176 

57 

376 

400 

382 

274 

528 

542,543 


467 

465 

466 


497 

40 


39 

65 

568 


394J 
575 
413 
421 
239,  603 


REVISION  OF  TIIE  TARIFF.  631 

Alphabetical  index  of  the  articles  specified  in  the  French  general  customs  tariff—  Continued. 


Articles. 

Numbers  in 
the  tariff. 

Articles. 

Numbers  in 
the  tariff. 

333 

Cast  steel 

500-507 

527 

Catechu 

205 

412 

Cattle 

4-14 

127,  635 

Cattle,  bones  of 

65-625 

' 153 

Cattle,  hoofs  of 

05-625 

313 

Cattle,  horns  of 

66 

505,  615 

Cereals 

67-69 

' 201 

Chairs,  iron .. 

494 

69 

Chairs,  sitting 

519 

168 

Chairs,  railroad,  iron 

488 

371 

Chalk 

171 

203 

Charcoal 

125 

501 

Charts 

415 

214 

Cheese 

35 

505,  615 

Chemicals 

214-258 

' 523 

Chestnuts  

76 

570 

Chewing  tobacco 

100 

68 

Chicory,  root 

151 

531 

Chicory,  ground  or  burnt 

294 

167-172 

China  ware 

327-613 

451 

Chlorates 

242 

6,7 

Chlorides 

243 

529 

Chocolate 

91 

485 

Chromates 

244 

36 

Cider 

309 

571 

Cigar-cases 

567 

525 

Cigars  and  cigarettes 

100 

492 

Cinchona  bark 

1)6 

28 

Cinnamon  

94-588 

Citrate  of  lime 

241 

C. 

Clay  pipes 

320 

Cabinet  furniture 

520 

Cliches  for  printing.. 

477 

Cabinets  of  coins,  medals,  and  all  collec- 

Clocks, and  parts  of 

445 

tions  of  antiquities 

579 

Cloth,  bolting 

399 

Cables  or  cable  chains,  iron 

494 

Clothing 

408 

Cables  or  cable  chains,  steel  wire 

500 

Cloth  wire 

479 

Cacao  or  cocoa 

91,  586 

Cloth,  woolen  . . 

403 

Cacao,  butter  of 

91 

C loves 

97 

Cactus,  figs  of  the 

82 

Coaches 

540 

Cadmium 

209 

Coal  

175 

Calabashes,  empty 

137 

Coal-oil 

257 

Calorifdres 

466 

Coal-tar 

177 

Calves 

8 

Coal-tar  dyes 

256 

Camel’s  hair 

22 

Cobalt 

212 

Camel’s  hair,  combed,  carded 

343 1 

Cobalt,  salts  of 

230 

Camel’s  hair,  fabrics  of 

404 

Cochineal 

259 

Camphor 

108 

Cocoa  and  butter  of 

91 

Canary  seed 

77 

Cnena, nuts 

137 

Candles,  all  kinds 

298, 300 

Cocoa,  oil  of 

101 

Canvas  floor  cloth 

351 

Cocoons  silk 

26 

Caoutchouc 

109 

Codfish 

45 

Caoutchouc,  manufactures  of 

547,  558 

Cod-liver  oil  (see  fish-oil) 

50 

Caps,  percussion 

513 

Coffee 

90 

Carbonate  of  lead 

240 

Coins  copper  gold  silver 

451 

Carbonate  of  magnesia 

240 

Coins,  engraved  for  printing  .... 

478 

Carbonate  of  potash 

220 

Coke 

175 

Carbonate  of  soda 

225 

Colcothar  oxyde  of  iron 

219 

Cardamom,  seed 

93,  590 

Collections,  objects  for 

579 

Cards,  for  looms 

470 

Col  or  3 

283 

Cards,  playing 

418 

Colts  

1 

Carillons,  musical 

449 

Combs  cardin0-  and  weaving 

473 

Carmines 

275 

Combs  for  the  hair 

564 

Carobs 

79 

Conduits  asphaltated  paper 

419 

Carpets,  axminster,  wool,  &c 

393-403  ! 

Con  fectionery 

88 

Carpets,  jute 

361  | 

Copper: 

Carriages 

54ft 

Boilers 

467 

Cartridges 

514 

Coins 

451 

Carts 

540 

Cylinders  engraved 

486 

Cars,  railroad 

541 

Gilt  or  silvered. 

201 

Case  for  musical  instruments 

531 

Manufactures  of 

505 

Cashmere,  tissues  of 

405 

Old  scrap 

201 

Cassia 

117 

Ore  and  unmanufactured 

'•  201 

Cassia  lignea 

94 

Wile 

201 

Cassimere 

• 403 

Coral : 

Cast  iron 

187 

Unmanufactured 

55 

Cast  iron,  manufactures  of 

488-490 

Cut  not  set 

555 

Cast  iron  and  iron,  manufactures  of 1 

503-504  1 

Imitation  of | 

332 

632 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY 


Alphabetical  index  of  the  articles  specified  in  the  French  general  customs  tariff—  Continued. 


Articles. 


Cordages 

Cords  (cotton  velvet) 

Corkwood 

Corks  and  manufactures  of  corkwood . 

Corn,  Indian  or  maize 

Cotton : 

Raw 

Tissues  of 

Yarn 

Counters,  pedometers,  &c 

Cows 

Crape,  silk 

Crochet  needles 

Crocus,  mineral 

Crucibles j 

Crystal,  rock  

Crystals  and  glass 

Cutbear 

Cutlery,  all  kinds 

Curtains,  cotton 

Cylinders,  copper,  for  printing 


D. 

Damasks : 

Linen 

Cotton 

Diamonds  

Diapers  

Dimities 

Distilled  spirits 

Dolls 

Downs,  for  beds  or  bedding 

Drawings 

Drugs,  used  in  tanning  or  dyeing. 

Drugs,  n.  o.  d 

Dust : 

Gold 

Silver 

Dye: 

Stuffs 

Prepared  

Wood 

Extracts  of 


E. 

Earths : 

For  arts  and  trade,  n.  o.  d 

(Colors) 

Earthenware 

Eggs,  poultry,  and  game 

Eggs,  silk-worm 

Elephant’s  tusks 

Embroideries : 

Cotton 

Upon  linen 

Enamel,  glass 

Endless  belts,  for  machines . 

Engravings 

Essences  or  essential  oils  : 

Coal 

Petroleum 

Turpentine 

Volatile 

Extracts  of  dye-wood 

Eye-bolts,  iron 

Eye-glasses 

F. 

Faiences 

Fans  

Farinaceous  food 

Fat* 

Animal 

Of  skins 

Feathers : 

Artificial 

Crude,  and  for  beds 


9 © 
rs,o 

fc43 

Articles. 

538 

369 

Fecula : 

From  countries  in  Europe 

124 

Exotic 

Felts  and  manufactures  of 

67 

Fences,  iron 

Fez,  wool 

131 

Fiddles 

364 

Fifes 

340 

Figs 

450 

Figs  of  the  cactus 

5 

Filberts 

407 

Files 

481 

246 

Filings : 

Copper 

318 

Iron 

163 

Lead 

329 

Tin 

267 

Zinc 

485 

Fire-arm  s 

383 

Fire-bricks 

486 

Fire-works 

Fish  ; 

Fish-glue  or  isinglass 

Fish-hooks 

352 

Fish  oil 

374 

Fish-plates  for  railroads 

161 

Flageolets 

353 

374 

313 

572 

25 

414 

259 

292 

Flax: 

Raw i 

Seed  | 

Tissues  of 

Yarn  of 

Flagging  stones  (ceramics) 

Flour : 

Barley,  buckwheat 

Rye,  maize,  oats 

182 

183 

Wheat,  spelt,  inaslin j 

! Chestnuts 

138 

I Flowers: 

Artificial 

259 

Used  in  dyeing 

129 

1 Medicinal 

269 

| Flues: 

Iron 

Wrought-iron 

Flutes  

166 

Fodder  

280 

Foulards,  silk 

317 

33 

Fruits: 

For  the  table ; ... 

33* 

61 

For  distilling 

For  dyeing  and  tanning 

Medicinal 

381 

Oleaginous 

358 

1 Furniture 

332 
428  1 

Furs: 

Raw  

414  I 

Prepared  and  manufactured 

j Fusel-oil  or  amylic  alcohol  

257 

j Fustet  in  sticks 

181 

106 

103 

269 

496 

G. 

C-allif*.  acid  

Gall-nuts  

563 

Game : 

Fresh  ............................... 

Meat  ..... 

326 

569 

67 

30 

31 

Garance  prepared  or  madder 

fi-arnn^inw  _ _ _ 

Gauze,  cotton 

Gas  retorts : 

Earthen  

Tron  ... 

f5-a.anmpt,prs  

576 

25 

Gelatine 

Gems 

co  ^£3 

|l 

!.§ 


296 

72 

548 

492 

394* 

531 

531 

80 

82 

80 

475 

201 

198 

202 

203 

204 
511 
168 
517 

44 

301 

483 

50 

488 

531 

132 

83 

350 

339 

324 


576 

145 

116 

489 

498 

531 

152 

407 

79 

82 

145 

117 

83 

518 

21 

433 

234 

143 


218 

144 

14 

16 

269 

269 

381 

489 

317 

466 

302 

161 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  63# 

Alphabetical  index  of  the  articles  specified  in  the  French  general  customs  tariff—  Continued. 


a 


Articles. 


1 81 

9 © 


German  silver: 

Unmanufactured 

Manufactured 

Gimps,  linen 

Gingerbread 

Glass  and  manufactures  of 

Gloves : 

Cotton 

Kid  or  leather 

Glue  — 

Glue-fish  (isinglass) 

Glycerine 

Goat’s-hair : 

Raw 

Carded,  combed,  <fec 

Manufactures  of 

Goats,  living 

Goblets,  glass 

Gold: 

Coin 

Leaf 

Manufactures  of 

Ores 

Sweepings  of 

Wire..-  

Grains : 

Cereals 

Hard,  to  be  dressed 

Medicinal 

For  dyeing  or  tanning 

For  sowing 

Granite  stone,  and  manufactures  of 

Grapes,  dry 

Graphite  

Green  (color) 

Grindstones 

Guipures  for  furniture  (cotton) 

Gums - ...  

Guns  and  gun-barrels 

Gunpowder 

Gutta  percha : 

Crude 

Manufactured 

Gypsum,  or  plaster  of  Paris 


205 

509 

357 

304 

328 

377 
424 
110,  302 
301 
245 

22 

343 

405 

11 

329 

451 

182 

437 

182 

184 

182 

67 

137 

117 

145 

84 

159 

80 

176 

282 

165 

375 

104 

511 

512 

109 

547 

171 


H. 

Hair: 

Camel’s,  raw 

Tissues  of 

Goat’s,  raw 

Threads  of 

Horse 

Manufactures  of 

Human,  manufactured 

Messina 

Hams  and  bacons 

Handkerchiefs 

Handles  of  tools,  wood 

Hardware: 

Iron  or  sheet  iron 

Steel  

Harmonicas 

Harmoniums 

Harness  makers’  work 

Harps 

Hartshorn 

Hats: 

Bark  and  sparterre  . . . 

Felt 

Millinery 

Palm-leaf  and  straw  . . 

Silk 

Wool 

Hautboys 

Heddles,  weaver’s 


22 

404 

24 

348 

23 

406 

574 
64 
16 

358 

119 

490,  497 
502 
531 
531 
427 
431 
237 

537 

552 

575 
537 
554 

553 
531 
389 


Articles. 


.9*. 


Heifers 

Hemps: 

Raw,  unmanufactured . . 

Cordage  of 

Tissues  of 

Yarn  of 

Herbs  for  dyeing  and  tannin 

Medicinal 

Hides,  skins,  raw 

Hide  cuttings 

Hinges  and  bolts 

Hogs  ...  

Hair  of 

Honey 

Hoofs  of  cattle 

Hooks,  fish 

Hoops,  iron 

Hops 

Horns  of  cattle : 

Crude  or  prepared 

Manufuctures  of 

Horse  hair 

Tissues  of 

Horses,  living 

Hosiery : 

Cotton 

Linens 

Silk  

Wool i. 

Hulls  of  ships 

Human  hair : 

Unmanufactured 

Manufactured 

Hyposulphite  of  soda 


7 

132 

538 

350 

337 

g 145 

116 

20 

41 

492 

12 

24 

37 

65 

483 

190 

148 

66 

508 

23 

406 

1 

377 

356 

407 

394 

543 

27 

574 

254 


I. 


Illipe,  oil  of  

Imitation  of  ivory 

Of  jewelry 

Of  precious  stones 

Of  tortoise  shell 

Indian,  corn  or  maize 

India  rubber : 

Crude  

Manufactures  of 

Indigo  and  compounds  of 

Ink 

Integuments  of  animals 

Instruments : 

Philosophical 

Musical 

Iodine 

Iodide  of  potassium 

Iron  : 

Angle  bars  andT-rails 

Band,  hoop,  and  scroll 

Cast  and  pig 

Coated  with  metal 

Dross  and  slag 

Manufactures  of  cast  iron 

For  manufacturing  wires 

Manufactures  of ! 

Ore j 

Old  scrap . 

Sheet 

Tinned j 

Wire j 

Isinglass  or  fish-glue 

Ivory : 

Unmanufactured  

Drop  black 

Imitation  of 

Manufactures  of I 


101 

63 

432 

332 

63 

68 

109 

547 

262 

277 
41 

560 

531 

215 

216 

189 

190 
187 
193 
200 
503 

191 
498 
186 
199 

192 

193 

194 
301 

81 

278 
63 

504* 


634  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 
Alphabetical  index  of  the  articles  specified  in  the  French  general  customs  tariff—  Continued. 


Articles. 

Kumbers  in 
the  tariff. 

Articles. 

Numbers  in 
the  tariff. 

J. 

Logwood,  extracts  of 

269 

Looking-glasses 

328 

Jet 

179 

Looms  . . 

460 

Jewelry  (gold  and  silver) 

437 

Lumber 

118 

Imitations  of 

438 

Joinings,  iron . 

498 

M. 

Juice: 

Of  lemon 

218 

Macaroni  and  vermicelli 

72 

114 

Mace 

96 

Of  orange 

312 

Machines : 

Jute : 

Bobbinet 

461 

Raw,  unmanufactured 

133 

Carding 

456 

Carpeting  of 

359 

Cleaning  textile  substances 

458 

Yarns  of 

338 

Sewing 

468 

Spinning 

459 

K. 

Steam 

452 

Kermess : 

Tools 

469 

Animal 

260 

Weaving 

460 

246 

Machinery  detached  parts  of 

470 

Kids 

11 

Madder : 

115 

Root 

138 

Knitting-needles 

481 

Extracts  of.. 

269 

485 

Garancine 

269 

Klip-fish 

45 

Magnesia: 

Calcined 

248 

L. 

Carbonate  of 

240 

Sulphate  of 

252 

417 

Mahogany 

127 

261 

Maize,  Indian  corn 

67 

Laces : 

Malleable  cast-iron,  articles 

491 

Cotton . . 

382 

Manganese  

211 

Linen _ . 

357 

Manna  . 

111 

Silk,  pure  or  mixed 

407 

Manila  hemp,  raw 

134 

Wool 

397 

Manufacturers  of : 

Lactate  of  iron 

247 

Basket-makers’  ware 

536 

Llama  wool : 

Caoutchouc 

547 

Tissues  of 1 

404 

Cordages  

532 

Wool  of 

22 

Gutta-percha 

547 

Yarn  of 

347 

Leather 

431 

Lampblack 

278 

Precious  metals 

437 

Lard  

30 

Metals,  common 

457 

Laurel  berries 

82 

Various  metals 

540 

Lead : 

Sparterre 

532 

Acetate  of 

233 

Wood 

523,  568 

Manufactures  of 

506 

Manures . _ _ 

38 

Ore  and  scrap . 

202 

Maps  

415 

Leaf,  gold 

182 

Marble  and  manufactures  of 

158 

Leather : 

Mares 

1 

Manufactures  of 

421 

Marl 

173 

Unmanufactured 

420 

Marrons  

76 

Leaves,  for  dyeing 

145 

Masts 

119 

medicinal 

116 

Matches,  chemical 

573 

Leguminous  plants,  dried 

75 

Matches,  slow,  for  mines 

516 

Lemons 

79 

Mathematical  instruments 

560 

Essence  of 

103 

Mats  

532 

Juice 

218 

Mead  

311 

Lichens : 

Meals 

76 

For  dveing 

141 

Meat,  fresh  and  prepared 

16 

Medicinal 

116 

Medicinal : 

Sizing 

290 

Plants  and  fruits 

116 

Licorice  jnice _ 

114 

Preparations 

292 

Limestone . _ 

171 

Substances _ _ 

116 

Lime,  citrate  of 

241 

Medicines 

292 

Lime-tree : 

Meerschaum,  manufactures  of 

556 

Bark  of 

136 

Mercury 

206 

Cordage  of 

538 

Mercury,  sulphide  of.... 

255 

Linen : 

Metals  

112 

Thread  of 

337 

Milk ’ 

34 

Tissues  of  . . 

350 

Millet,  seed _ 

Linseed,  oil-cakes  

154 

Millinery 

575 

Liquors,  spirituous 

314 

Mill-stones 

165 

List  of  cloth 

402 

: Mineral  oils  and  essences 

181 

List  slippers 

401 

! Mineral  waters 

316 

Lithographs  [ 

414  | 

I Mirrors 

328 

Lobsters 

48 

‘ Mock  tortoise  

63 

Locksmiths’  work 1 

493 

Mohair *. 

348 

Locomobiles  and  locomotives | 

454 

1 Molasses  

87 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


635 


Alphabetical  index  of  the  articles  specified  in  the  French  general  customs  tariff—  Continued. 


a 


Articles. 


Moleskin : 

Leather 

Velvet 

Morocco  and  manuipctures  of 

Mother  of  pearl 

Mother  of  pearl,  articles  ruade  of . 

Moldings  of  wood 

Molds,  button  

Mules,  living * 

Mussels  and  other  shell  fish 

Music,  printed  or  engraved 

Musical  instruments 

Muslins,  cotton 

Mustard 


N. 

Nails,  iron 

Naphthaline 

Natron  and  soda  ash  . . 
Needles: 

Knitting 

Sewing 

Nets,  fishing 

New  Zealand: 

Flax,  raw 

Flax,  tissues  of- . . 
Flax,  yarn  of  .... . 
Nickel: 

Unmanufactured  . 
Manufactures  of. . 

Nitrates 

Nitric  acid 

Niter,  benzine 

Nutgalls 

Nutmegs 

Nuts  and  filberts 

O. 


Oak 

Oars 

Oatmeal 

Oats 

Ochers 

. Oil  cakes 

Oil-cloth,  cotton 

Oil-cloth,  flax  or  hemp 

Oils: 

Coal  tar 

Mineral 

Odve  

Petroleum  and  other  mineral 

Vegetable,  aromatized 

Volatile 

Oil  seeds  and  fruits 

Opera  glasses 

Opium 

Optical  instruments 

Oranges 

Orange,  essence  of 

Orange,  juice  of 

Orchil  

Ores,  not  otherwise  specified 

Organs  

Orpiment 

Ottar  of  oil  of  roses 

Oxalate  of  potash 

Oxalic  acid 

Oxen 

Oxides 

Oysters 


P. 


Pack-thread,  flax 
Paddy  


387 

369 

Paintings,  for  collections 

Paints,  colors 

420,431  1 
64 

Palm  oil 

Paper  and  manufactures  of 

567 

Papier  mach6 -- 

521, 528 
525 

Paraffine 

Parasols 

2 

Pasteboard 

49 

416 

Paste,  Italian 

Pastel 

531 

Paving  stones  

384 

Paving  tiles .* 

291 

Pearl,  grain 

Pearls : 

Steel 

Fine 

495 

Pears,  dried 

257 

Peltries,  undressed 

226 

Peltries,  dressed  and  marked 

Pencils 

481 

480 

539 

Pens,  metallic  (other  than  gold  and  silver) 
Pens,  quills 

Pepper  

Percussion  caps 

34 

363 

Perfumery  

Perry 

339 

Peruvian  hark 

Peruvian  bark,  extracts  of 

205 

Petroleum  . . . 

509 

Phenic  or  carbolic  acid 

249 

Philosophical  apparatus 

218 

Phosphorus 

257 

Phosphorus  mass 

144 

95 

Phormium  tenax,  raw  

Phormium  tenax,  yarn  of 

80 

Phormium  tenax,  tissues  of 

Photographs 

Pianos  

Piano-keys,  ivory 

118 

Picric  acid 

119 

Pigs,  sucking 

70 

Pimento 

67 

Pins 

280 

154 

Pipes: 

Smoking,  clay 

387 

Smoking,  meerschaum 

381 

Pipes  or  conduits : 

Asphaltated  

257 

181 

101 

C!a, st-iron  ..  . . .... 

Iron,  wrought 

Earthen 

181 

Lead 

102# 

103 

83 

563 

Leather  

Pitch  

Pith  of  reeds,  rattans,  &c 

Piques,  cotton 

113 

560 

79 

Plants : 

For  dyeing  and  tanning 

Leguminous 

103 

Medicinal 

312 

Planks,  for  floors 

267 

Plaster  ..  

213 

Plate  and  hollow- ware  glass 

531 

Plates,  engraved  for  printing 

255 

Plate,  silver 

103 

Plates,  for  carding-machines 

250 

Platina ^ 

218 

Platina,  manufactures  of 

4 ! 

Plumbago 

219 

Poles,  wood 

47 

Polishing  stones 

Porcelains 

Pork 

Potash,  carbonate  of 

538 

Potash,  nitrate  of 

74 

Potatoes 

493 

578 

273 

101 

409 
411 

218, 299 
577 

410 
72 

264 

170 
168 

70 

501 

56 

315 

21 

434 

279 

484 

25 

92 

513 

288 

309 

116 

258 

181 

272 

560 

217 

258 

134 

339 

363 

414 

531 

566 

272 

13 

92 

482 

320 

556 

419 

489 

498 

319 

506 

429 

177 

534 

372 

138 

75 

116 

528 

171 
328 
478 
438 
470 
182 
437 
176 
123 
166 
327 

16 

220 

249 

78 


63G 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY 


Alphabetical  index  of  the  articles  specified  in  the  French  general  customs  tariff—  Continued. 


c 

s-<  "si 


Articles. 


9 <0 

0 43 


Articles. 


.5.8 
9 o 

fc5 


Pottery: 

Earthenware 

Iron 

Tinned 

Poultry i, 

Powder,  gun 

Precious  stones 

Precious  stones,  imitations  of. 
Preserves,  in  sugar  or  honey  . 

Printing  machines 

Printing  types 

Projectiles 

Props 

Prunes 

Prussian  blue 

Prussiate  of  Potash 

Pumice-stone 


Q. 


Quercitron 

Quills,  writing 

Quicksilver 

Quiltings  or  bed-quilts 
Quinine 


317 

507 

490 

14 

512 

161 

332 

39 

463 

476 

515 

123 

79 

274 

256* 

166 


140 

25 

206 

372 


S. 


Saddlery 

Sago 

Sal  ammoniac 

Salep 

Salmon 

Salt,  marine 

Saltpeter . 

Salts: 

Ammoniac  al 

Of  antimony 

Of  cobalt 

Of  silver 

Of  soda . 

Of  tin 

Other,  not  denominated, 

Sarcocolla 

Sardines  

Sarsaparilla 

Sassafras 

Saws 

Scammony 

Scarfs : 

Cashmere 

Silk 


425 
72 
229* 
72 
44,  45 
229 
249 


229* 

2fQ 

230 

231 
228 

232 
258 
115 


116 

116 

475 

116 


405 

407 


E. 

Eabbits,  living 

Eags 

Eailroad : 

Cars 

Chairs  

Fish-plates  and  joints 

Eails : 

Iron 

Steel 

Eaisins 

Earns • 

Eattans  

Eazors 

Eeady-made  clothing 

Eeeds : 

Cordage  of 

Manufacturers  of 

Pitch  of 

Weavers’ 

Eegulus  of  antimony 

Eeps 

Eesins 

Eetorts,  gas : 

Cast-iron 

Earthen 

Eibbons : 

Cotton 

Flax  and  hemp 

Silk 

Silk  and  cotton 

Wool 

Eibbons  of  cords 

Eice  and  rice-grits 

Eocou  or  annotto 

Eoes  of  codfish  and  mackerel 
Eoofing : 

Slates 

Tiles 

Eoots : 

Chicory 

For  dyeing  and  tanning . . 

Medicinal 

Eopes  

Eoses,  essences  of. 

Eosewood,  extracts  of 

Eosins  

Eum 

Eushes  and  reeds 

Eye  (grain  and  flour) 


Scientific  apparatus 
Scissors 


14-16 

155 

Scrap : 

Copper 

Iron 

541 

488 

488 

Lead  

Screens,  hand 

Screws,  iron 

Scnlptnre  stone  for . _ 

189 

Sealing  wax 

198 

80 

9 

135 

485 

408-547 

Seal  skins  not  dressed 

Seeds : 

Tlyeino' 

Medicinal  ....  ..  

Oleaginous 

Sowing 

Sem  miles  _ 

538 

535 

534 

473 

207 

372 

105 

Sewing-machines  

Sowing-needles ...... 

Shafts,  cast-iron 

Shawls : 

Cashmere 

Wool  

Sheep,  living - 

Sheet,  iron 

489 

Sheet  iron  manufactures  of 

317 

Sheet  steel  

Sheet  steel  manufactures  of 

379 

355 

407 

388* 

394* 

470 

74 

266 

52 

Shellfish 

Shells  for  manufacturing  

Ships  and  boats 

Ships’  tackle  and  apparel  . 

Shoddy 

Shoes: 

Tndia-rnhher  

Leather 

Straps  ....... 

Wooden  r.. ... 

167 

168 

Side  a rm s .... 

Silicate  of  soda  

Silk  and  silk  waste  crude  .... 

151 

145 

116 

538 

103 

103 

104 
313 
135 

67 

Silk: 

Threads  of ... 

Tissues  of .. 

Hats  of ......... 

Silkworm  eggs 

Silver: 

Ore 

floin ....... 

freeman  ........ 

Leaf 

560 

485 

201 

199 

202 

5cy 

496 

164 

297 

54 

145 

117 

83 

84 
71 


489 

405 

396 

9 

192 

465 

196 

565 

49 

137 

542 

545 

155 

547 

421 

423 

526 

511 

251 

26 

249 

407 

554 

33} 

183 

451 

205 

183 


REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF.  637 

Alphabetical  index  of  the  articles  specified  in  the  French  general  customs  tariff — Continued. 


d 


Articles. 


2 © 
BA 


Silver— Continued. 

Manufactures  of 

Salts  of 

Sweepings  of 

Wire 

Sizing  made  from  Iceland  moss  . . . 
Skins : 

Raw 

Prepared ■. 

Manufacture  of . . . 

Slates : 

Building  and  roofing 

Drawing  and  writing 

Slides,  steel 

Slippers,  list 

Soaps 

Soda 

Caustic 

Bicarbonate  of 

Nitrate  of 

Salts  of,  not  denominated 

Vareck 

Sodium ✓. 

Sparterre : 

Cordage  of 

Parts  of 

Tresses 

Spars 

Spectacles 

Speiss 

Spelt 

Spermaceti 

Spices,  prepared 

Spiegel,  pig-iron  

pirits  

Splints  of  wood 

Sponges 

Springs  for  carriages 

Starch  

statuary : 

Alabaster,  marble,  stone 

Metal 

Staves  

Steam  : 

Boilers 

Machinery 

Stearic  acid 

Manufactured,  not  candles 

Steel : 

Rails  and  bars 

Sheet  or  plate 

Wire 

Other  manufactures  of 

Detached  pieces  of  machinery 

Steers 

Stereotype  plates 

Stockfish 

Stockings: 

Cotton ^ 

Linen 

Silk 

Wool 

Stones : 

Building 

Manufactures  of 

Paving 

Precious 

Not  otherwise  denominated  . . 

Stone  ware 

Stoves  

Straps  for  wooden  shoes 

Straw : 


437 

231 

184 

183 

290 

20 

420 

432 

167 

164 

501 

401 

288 

223 

224 

227 
249 

228 
223 
258 

538 


119 
563 
205 

67 

51 

291 

187 

313 

121 

58 

476 

295 

158 

487 

120 

465 

452 

218 

299 

195 

196 

197 
500 
474 

9 

476 

45 

377 

356 

407 

394 

169 
164 

170 
161 
166 
322 
466 
423 


Hats 

Tresses  and  hands  . . 

Strings  of  metal  for  musical  instruments. 
Substances  used  in  perfumery  and  phar- 
macy  '. 


250 

533 

197 

58 


l 


Articles. 


d 

© p 

3 © 


Sugar 

Sugar  of  milk 

Sulphate  of  alumina 1 

Sulphates,  other 

Sulphides 

Sulphite  of  soda 

Sulphur 

Sulphuric  acid 

Sumac 

Surgical  instruments 

Sweepings  of  gold  and  silver 

Sweetmeats 

Sirups 


T. 

Table  linens,  damasks,  &c 

Talc 

Tallow 

Tamarinds 

Tannic  acid 

Tanning  stuffs 

Tapestry,  wool 

Tapioca... 

Tar,  crude 

Tartar,  crude 

Tartaric  acid 

Tartrate  of  potash 

Tea 

Teeth : 

Elephant’s,  crude 

Elephant’s,  manufactured 

For  weaver’s  cards 

Terra  sienna,  umbra,  &c 

Tenders  for  locomotives 

Thimbles,  steel 

Threads : 

Cotton 

Linen  or  hemp 

Pack 

Silk 

Tiles : 

Drain  ...i :...  ......  1 

Roofing  and  paving 

Timber  for  building 

Tin  glass  (bismuth) 

Tin: 

Manufactures  of 

Unmanfactured 

Salts  of 

Plate  

Tissues : 

Alapca,  lama,  vicune 

Cashmere 

Cotton 

Elastic, India-rubber, and  gutta-percha 
Flax  or  hemp 

Jute | 

Tissues : 

Manila  hemp 

New  Zealand  flax I 

Silk  and  silk  waste 

Silk  and  cotton  mixed j 

Vegetable  fibers,  n.  o.  d 

Wool | 

Tobacco I 

Tools : 

Metal 

Machines 

Tortoise-shell 

Combs  of 

Imitation  of  . - 

Tow,  flax,  or  hemp  

Tresses  or  bands  of  wood,  bark,  straw,  &c 
Trimmings: 

Cotton 


85 

305 

236 

252 
255 

253 
174 
218 
143 
561 
184 

89 

88 


353 

284 

30 

117 

258 

138 

395 

72 

177 

256 

218 

256 

99 


• 61 
564 
473 
281 
455 
501 

340 

337 

538 

349 

319 

168 

524 

210 

507 

203 

232 

193 

404 

405 
364 
547 

350 
405 
359 

363 

363 

407 

388 

363 

390 

100 

475 

469 

62 

564 

63 

132 

533 

378 


638  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 
Alphabetical  index  of  the  articles  specified  in  the  French  general  customs  tariff—  Continued. 


Articles. 

Numbers  in 
the  tariff. 

Articles. 

Numbers  in 
the  tariff. 

Trimmings— Continued. 

Waste— Continued. 

355 

Silk 

26 

407 

W oolen 

22 

< 388 

j Watch  cases 

439 

Wool 

394| 

1 Watch  crvst.als,  glasses  

445 

147 

j Watch  materials 

443, 445 

430  i 

Watches 

’440 

Tubes,  iron 

498  ■ 

Waters : 

Tulles : 

Distilled 

293 

Cotton 

380 

Mineral 

316 

Silk 

407 

! Wax : 

156 

"Raw 

32 

139 

Candles 

298 

268  1 

Sealing 

297 

106 

Stearic 

299 

Turtles t 

14 

W earing  apparel 

408 

Tusks,  elephants’ 

61  ! 

Whalebone : 

Twills 

354  : 

Raw 

53 

476 

Manufactures  of  

557 

Whale-oil 

51 

U. 

1 Wheat 

67 

1 Wheelwrights’  work 

540 

Ultramarine 

273 

Wicks: 

577 

For  lamps,  &c 

386 

Utensils : 

Slow  matches,  for  mines 

516 

318 

! Willow,  and  manufactures  of 

536 

490 

1 Window-glass 

330 

Wire-cloth 

479 

V. 

| Wire: 

Brass  or  copper 

201 

Yalonia  nuts 

144 

Gold  and  silver 

182 

Vanilla  

98  | 

Iron 

194 

Varec,  soda  of 

223 

Steel  

197 

Varnishes 

276  ! 

Wood : 

Vegetables : 

Building 

118 

Dried 

75 

Cabinet 

127 

Fihp.rs  

134 

Coal 

125 

ftrppn  _ . 

146  ; 

Common,  n. 0. d 

126 

Extracts  of,  n.  o.  d 

104  I 

Dye 

129 

Salted  or  pickled 

146 

Fire  

125 

Velvets: 

Hoops 

122 

Cotton 

368  j 

Manufactures  of 

522,  568 

Silk  

496  1 

Moldino~s  

521,  528 

W ool  

398 

Odoriferous 

128 

V erdegris  

233 

Poles 

123 

Verditer  or  Bremen  green 

283 

Split 

121 

"Verjuice  

309 

Tresses  or  bands 

533 

Vermicelli 

72 

Wool : 

Vermilion 

255 

In  mass,  all  kinds 

22 

Vessels : 

Combed,  carded 

343 

Brass  or  copper  

505 

Caps  and  hats - 

553 

1 rnn  ... 

490,  507 

Tissues  of 

390 

Tin,  zinc . 

50T 

Yarn  

344 

Pewter  or  Britannia 

507 

Waste 

22 

Vessels  ships  and  boats - 

542 

W ormwood 

149 

Vetch,  dried,  for  fodder 

152 

Vicuna: 

Y. 

Thread  of 

347 

Yams : 

Tissues  of 

404 

Alpaca,  llama,  vicuna 

347 

Wool  of  

22 

Cotton 

340 

Vineorar  

308 

Flax  and  hemp 

337 

For  perfumery 

288 

Hair 

348 

Violins 

531 

Jute 

338 

Vitrifactions 

332 

Manila  and  other,  from  vegetable  fib- 

Vitriol blue  .... 

252 

ers  . 

339 

Volatile  nils  and  essences 

103 

Silk  and  silk  waste 

349 

Vomic-nut 

117 

Woolen 

344 

Yak: 

W. 

Threads  of 

347 

Tissues  of 

404 

W addin"  cotton 

131 

Wool  of 

22 

Wagons 

541 

Warp  yarn,  cotton 

342 

z. 

Waste : 

Zinc: 

Fur  . 

433 

Unmanufactured 

204 

For  making  paper 

157 

Manufactures  of 

508 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


639 


THE  GERMAN  TARIFF. 

MODE  OF  COLLECTING  REVENUE  THEREUNDER. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington , September  19,  1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  inclose  herein  for  your  information  a copy 
of  a dispatch  from  the  consul-general  at  Berlin,  of  the  15th  ultimo, 
numbered  28,  relating  to  specific  duties  in  Germany. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAS.  D.  PORTER, 

Acting  Secretary. 


No.  28.  J 

United  States  Consulate -General, 

Berlin,  August  15,  1885. 

Hon.  Assistant  Secretary  of  State, 

Washington , D.  C.  : 

Sir:  I have  made  some  inquiries  into  the  “ modus”  of  import  revenue  collections 
in  Germany,  and  find  that  the  system  of  specific  duties  has  to  a great  extent  para- 
lyzed smuggling.  The  duties  are,  however,  not  collected  upon  the  net,  but  gross 
weight  of  the  goods.  This  prevents  overvaluations  in  “tara”  and  fraud,  compelling 
payment  of  duty  in  strict  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  law. 

The  meaning  of  the  German  law  in  regard  to  specific  duties  is,  that  each  package, 
cask,  box,  &c.,  of  goods  shall  be  subject  to  duty  according  to  its  “brutto”  or  gross 
weight,  except  in  such  cases  when  the  material  used  for  packing  is  subject  to  a 
higher  rate  such  material  is  to  be  taxed  separately  after  the  goods  are  unpacked, 
and  the  higher  duty  collected  from  the  entire  “brutto”  weight. 

With  your  permission  I will  endeavor  to  gather  additional  information  to  meet  the 
request  of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  transmit  the  same  to  you  in 
due  time. 

I am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

F.  RAINE, 

U.  S.  Consul-General. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington , December  15, 1885. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ; 

Sir  : Adverting  to  the  letter,  under  date  of  the  19th  of  September  last, 
addressed  to  you  by  the  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  I have  the  honor  to 
inclose  herein  a copy  of  a dispatch  from  the  consul-general  at  Berlin, 
of  the  14th  ultimo,  in  which  he  submits  a tabular  statement  of  the  u re- 
lation of  German  specific  duties  to  the  value  of  goods  imported,”  pur- 
suant to  the  instructions  addressed  to  him  on  the  19th  of  September  last. 
I have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

T.  F.  BAYARD. 


No.  63.]  United  States  Consulate-General, 

Berlin,  November  14,  1885. 

Hon.  James  D.  Porter, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  your  letter  of  instructions  No.  24,  dated  September  19 
last,  to  complete  my  report  No.,  28,  dated  August  15,  regarding  the  relation  of  specific 
duties  collected  in  Germany  to  the  value  of  goods  imported,  I am  now  enabled  to 
submit  a tabular  statement  of  14  pages  giving  such  information,  embracing  five 
hundred  items  of  the  German  tariff. 

The  delay  was  caused  by  the  fact  that  official  statistic  information  was  published 
after  the  transmission  of  my  first  report,  and  the  preparation  of  annual  report  (No. 
57,  Nov.  17,  1885)  taxed  to  the  utmost  the  available  forces  of  the  consulate. 


640  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


As  stated  before,  tbe  German  Empire  collects  duties  by  weight.  Yearly  average 
values  are  ascertained  for  statistical  purposes  ouly  iu  tbe  course  of  the  year  subse- 
quent to  the  calendar  year  (this  time  of  1884)  in  which  such  goods  were  imported  by 
a board  of  experts  convoked  under  legal  authority  of  the  German  Federal  Council 
from  all  branches  of  trade  and  industry  and  from  all  parts  of  the  Empire. 

As  only  values  of  goods  imported  are  objects  of  comparison  in  this  report,  it  may 
be  well  to  refer  again  to  the  principle  upon  which  such  board  of  experts  ascertains 
or  estimates  the  value  of  goods  imported. 

I quote  here  (in  translation)  some  of  the  rules  published  by  the  German  Statistical 
Bureau  for  determining  the  value  of  imports. 

“As  price  of  goods  imported  the  amount  is  to  be  ascertained  which  was  paid  by 
Germany  to  a foreign  country,  and  in  estimating  import  prices  all  qualities,  sorts, 
and  kinds  are  to  be  considered  in  which  goods  were  procured  in  foreign  countries. 

“It  will  be  observed  that,  in  determining  import  prices,  German  import  duties, 
moneys  paid  by  German  importers  for  freight  or  insurance  from  the  port  of  entry  to 
the  place  of  inland  destination,  and  charges  for  storage  in  warehouses,  &c.,  shall  not 
he  included.” 

The  franu  rs  of  the  German  tariff  took  the  view  that  articles,  particularly  raw  ma- 
terial, &c.,  are  either  subject  to  no  duties  at  all  or  should  only  be  made  dutiable  to 
an  extent  corresponding  with  the  requirements  and  necessities  of  German  trade  and 
industry. 

Therefore  the  items  on  the  free  list  are  quite  numerous : For  instance: 

All  waste  matter,  cotton,  lead,  albumine,  alizarine,  alkaloids  and  their  salts,  ani- 
line, aniline  colors,  most  of  chemicals  and  drugs,  earths,  ores,  dye-stuffs,  minerals, 
flax,  jute,  hemp,  cocoanut  fibers,  other  vegetables,  spinning  materials,  chicory,  most 
of  seeds,  horse  hair,  whalebone,  bristles,  hides,  skins,  carving  materials,  scientific 
instruments,  books,  maps,  music,  engraving^,  paintings,  drawings,  statuary  and  the 
like,  steam-engines,  boilers,  vessels  for  seas  and  rivers,  inclusive  of  all  usual  imple- 
ments, articles  of  equipment,  anchors,  engines,  boilers;  caoutchouc  gutta-percha; 
metals,  not  precious ; silk ; stones,  raw ; alabaster,  marble,  lithographic  stones ; as- 
phaltum ; pitches,  resins,  bricks,  tiles,  &c. 

For  fuller  information  relative  to  modes  of  collecting  duties,  customs  regulations, 
tare,  formalities  of  entry,  &c.,  I refer  to  the  book  accompanying  my  report  of  to- 
day, entitled,  “Zolltarif.”  This  book,  published  a few  days  ago,  contains  the  latest 
amendments,  and  gives  a succinct  view  of  the  entire  machinery  of  customs  in  the  Ger- 
man Empire. 

As  one  of  the  merits  of  the  German  system  of  collecting  cluties  by  weight,  its  framers 
take  pride  in  saying  that  complaints  are  avoided  and  detection  of  fraud  facilitated. 

I am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

F.  RAINE, 
Consul-General. 


Relation  of  specific  duties  to  the  value  in  Germany. 


Articles. 

Unit. 

Kates  of  duty. 

Estimated  value 
of  goods  im- 
ported. 

Relation  of  du- 
ties to  value. 

ANIMALS. 

Horses 

Head 

Marks. 

20 

$4  76 

$202  00 
48  00 

1 : 42.  4 

Mules,  donkeys,  &c 

10 

2 38 

1 : 20.  2 

Steers 

9 

2 14 

217  00 

1 : 10.  1 

Cows 

9 

2 14 

90  00 

1 : 42. 1 

Oxen 

do 

30 

7 14 

89  00 

1 : 12.8 

Young  cattle  up  to  24  years  old 

....do 

6 

1 42 

40  00 

1 : 28.  2 

Hogs 

0 

1 42 

24  00 

; 1 : 16.  9 

Sucking  pigs  under  10  kilos 

. . do 

1 

23 

2 20 

1 : 9.  6 

Sheep  

1 

23  ! 

. 5 90. 

■ 1 : 25.7- 

Lambs - 

do 

0.  5 

11 

1 30 

1 : 11.8 

Calves  under  6 weeks  old 1 

do 

3 

71 

13  00 

1 : 18. 3 

ARTICLES  OF  FOOD  AND  CONSUMPTION. 

Food  of  animal  origin. 

Meat,  fresh  and  prepared 

100  kilos  net. 

1 20 

4 76  | 

22  60  | 

1 : 47.  5 

Poultry  and  game  of  all  kinds,  not  live 

....do 

! 30 

7 14  1 

52  30  I 

1 : 73.  2 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


641 


Relation  of  specific  duties  to  the  value  in  Germany — Continued. 


Articles. 

Unit. 

Rates  of  duty. 

Estimated  value 
of  goods  im- 
ported. 

Relation  of  du- 
ties to  value. 

articles  of  food  and  consumption— continued. 

1 

Food  of  animal  origin — Continued. 

Marks. 

Meat  extract,  concentrated  bouillon 

100 kilos  net. 

20 

$4  76 

$309  00 

1 

: 64.9 

do 

10 

2 38 

20  20 

1 

: 8.5 

do 

20 

4 76 

do 

20 

4 76 

38  00 

1 

: 79.  8 

3 

71 

24  90 

1 

: 35. 1 

do 

3 

71 

13  00 

1 

: 18.3 

...do  

Free. 

28  50 

Barrel* 

3 

71 

7 30 

1 : 

: 10. 3 

Codfish^  dried 

100  kilos  net. 

8 

71 

14  20 

1 : 

: 20 

....  do 

150 

35  70 

202  30 

1 

: 56. 6 

do 

50 

11  90 

35  70 

: 30 

do 

24 

5 71 

45  20 

1 

: 7.9 

GRAIN,  MALT,  TUL6E,  &C. 

do 

3 

71 

3 60 

1 

: 5. 1 

3 

71 

2 80 

1 

: 3. 9 

do 

1.  50 

35 

2 80 

1 

: 8. 0 

....do 

1.  50 

35 

3 40 

J 

: 9.7 

do 

1 

23 

2 70 

] 

: 11.7 

....do 

1 

23 

2 60 

1 

: 11. 3 

do 

4 

95 

Grains,  n.  o.  p.  f 

....do 

1 

23 

3 80 

1 

: 16.  5 

Malt 

do 

1.  20 

28 

5 70 

] 

: 20.4 

Pulse  

do  

23 

3 80 

1 

: 16.5 

MILL-GROUND  PRODUCTS— ORDINARY  BAKER’S  WARE. 

Mill  products  of  grain  and  pulse 

. . . .do 

7.5 

1 78 

7 10 

1 

3.9 

Starch-gum,  farina  powders,  arrowroot 

do 

9 

2 14 

14  20 

1 

6.6 

Starch 

....do 

9 

2 14 

9 00 

1 

4.2 

Crushed  or  shelled  grain ’ 

do 

7.5 

1 78 

5 90 

1 

3.3 

Sago  and  substitutes  for  sago,  tapioca 

do 

9 

2 14 

6 60 

1 

3.  08 

Vermicelli 

do 

10 

2 38 

10  40 

1 

4.  36 

Ordinary  baker’s  ware - 

. . . .do 

2 

47 

7 10 

1 

15. 11 

FRUIT,  VEGETABLES. 

Grapes,  fresh 

do 

15 

3 57 

4 90 

1 

1.  37 

Fresh  oranges,  lemons,  &c 

....  do 

12 

2 85 

6 60 

1 

.23 

Fruit,  dried,  baked,  powdered,  steamed 

do 

4 

95 

8 80 

1 

9.8 

Figs 

24 

5 71 

9 50 

1 

1.7 

Currants 

do 

24 

5 71 

8 50 

1 

1.5 

Raisins 

do 

24 

5 71 

8 50 

1 

1.5 

Dates,  oranges,  &c.,  dried 

do 

30 

7 14 

19  00 

1 

2.6 

Almonds,  dried 

do 

30  ‘ 

7 14 

30  90 

1 

4.3 

Dried  nuts,  chestnuts,  St.  John’s  bread,  pine  cones. 

do 

4 

95 

31  10 

1 

32.8 

COFFEE,  COCOA,  TEA. 

Coffee: 

Raw 

40 

9 52 

26  10 

1 

2.7 

Burnt 

do 

50 

11  90 

32  80 

1 

2.8 

Chicory,  burnt  or  ground 

do 

4 

95 

5 70 

1 

6 

Coffee  substitutes  (excepting  chicory) 

do 

40 

9 52 

9 50 

1 

1 

Cocoa  in  beans 

do 

35 

8 33 

40  40 

1 

4.9 

Cocoa  shells 

do 

12 

2 85 

4 70 

1 

1.7 

Cocoa  mass,  cocoa  powder,  chocolate,  and  substi- 

tutes for  chocolate 

do 

80 

14  28 

83  30 

1 : 

: 58 

Tea 

100 

23  80 

52  30 

1 ; 

: 2.2 

SUGAR,  MOLASSES,  SIRUP. 

Sugar : 

Raw  sugar,  under  No.  19  of  Dutch  standard  . . 

...do  , 

24 

5 71 

9 50 

1 : 

: 1.66 

Raw  sugar  of  No.  19  of  Dutch  standard  and 

above  (of  at  least  80  per  cent,  polarization) . . 

do 

30 

7 14 

10  20 

1 

1.43 

Refined  sugar 

do  

30 

7 14 

9 70 

1 

1.  39 

Sirup 

15 

3 57 

5 70 

1 

1.  6 

Grape  sugar,  glucose,  starch  sugar 

15 

3 57 

6 10 

1 

1.71 

* 150  kilos. 

S.  Ex.  72 41 


642 


KEEORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Relation  of  specific  duties  to  the  value  in  Germany — Continued. 


Article!. 


Unit. 


Rates  of  duty. 


fermented  liquors,  mineral  waters,  and  table 

OILS. 


Marks. 


Beer  of  all  kinds,  also  mead 

Arrack,  rum,  French  brandy  — 

Brandies,  6piced 

Other  brandies  of  all  kinds 

Vinegar  in  casks  of  at  least  50  k, 

Vinegar  in  bottles 

Cider  in  casks 

Cider  in  bottles 

Wine  and  must  in  casks 

Sparkling  wine 

Other  wine 

Artificial  drinks  in  casks 

Artificial  diinks  in  bottles 

Oil,  liquid,  in  bottles  or  jars 

Olive  oil  in  casks 

Table  oils 


100  kilos  net . 

— do 

— do 

....do  

— do 

— do 

— do 

do 

....do 

do 

— do 

do 

...  do 

do 

do 

...do  


4 

80 

80 

80 

8 

48 

24 

24 

24 

80 

48 

24 

48 

20 

10 

10 


$0 

95 

$4 

90 

19 

04 

27 

30 

19 

04 

40 

40 

19 

04 

16 

60 

1 

90 

11 

90 

11 

42 

23 

80 

5 

71 

11 

40 

5 

71 

12 

80 

5 

71 

14 

70 

19 

04 

57 

10 

11 

42 

35 

70 

5 

71 

14 

20 

11 

42 

21 

40 

4 

76 

40 

40 

2 

38 

29 

70 

2 

38 

21 

40 

a 

'S  ® 


■si 


: 5.16 

: 1.43 

: 2.13 

: 87 

: 6.26 
: 2.08 
: 1.98 

: 2.24 

: 2.57 

: 3 

: 3.13 

: 2.49 

: 1.87 

: 8.49 

: 12.48 
: 8.99 


CONFECTIONERY  AND  SIMILAR  TABLE  DELICACIES. 


Confectionery,  candies,  cakes 

Articles  of  consumption,  preserved  in  sugar,  vin- 
egar, oil 


do 

.do 


60 


14  28 
14  28 


47  60 
35  70 


1 : 3.  33 

1:  2.5 


TOBACCO  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF  TOBACCO. 


In  leaf,  unmanufactured,  also  waste 

Tobacco  stems 

Tobacco  in  leaves  without  ribs 

Cigars 

Cigarettes 

Snuff 

Tobacco,  worked  for  chewing 

Tobacco,  worked  for  smoking,  and  other  manu- 
factures of 

Tobacco  juice 


do 

do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


6EEDS  AND  PLANTS,  NOT  FOR  HUMAN  FOOD. 

Rape  seeds  and  turnip  seeds 

Sesame 

Ground-nuts 


do 

do 

do 


85 

85 

180 

270 

270 

180 

180 


20  23 
20  23 
42  84 
64  26 
64  26 
42  84 
42  84 


38 

00 

1 

1.88 

3 

30 

1 

0. 16 

71 

40 

1 

1.67 

547 

40 

1 

8.51 

428 

40 

1 

6.  67 

71 

40 

1 

1.67 

47 

60 

1 

1. 11 

180 

85 


42  84 
20  23 


40  40  1 : 0. 94 

30  90  1 : L 53 


2 

2 

2 


47 

47 

47 


4 99  1 : 

5 95  1 : 

6 18  1 : 


10.62 
12.  66 
13. 15 


CHEMICALS  AND  DRUGS. 


Black-ash,  also  soda  crystals 

Soda-ash,  finished 

Bicarbonate  of  soda 

Caustic  soda 

Potash 

Caustic  potash 

Ferrocyanide  of  potassium,  ferricyanide  of  potas- 
sium  

Alum 

Chloride  of  lime 

Glauber’s  salt 

Oxalic  acid 

TANNING  STUFFS,  DYE-STUFFS,  COLORS. 


do 

do 

.do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


Bark  and  tan 

Ultramarine 

Soot 

Printing  ink 

Ink  and  ink-powder 

Painters’  colors,  &c 

Lead,  red,  and  color  pencils  . . . 

Yeast 

Petroleum 

Other  mineral  oils,  n.  o.  p.  f 

Oil  of  juniper  and  rosemary 

Ethereal  oils,  n.  o.  p.  f 

Ethers  


.do 

.do 

do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 

.do 


1.  60 

34 

1 60 

, 1 

4. 71 

1.  50 

34 

2 90 

| 1 

8.  53 

2.50 

59 

3 80 

1 

6.44 

4 

95 

6 10 

1 

6.42 

1. 50 

34 

9 50 

1 1 

27.  94 

4 

95 

15  40 

1 

16.  21 

8 

1 90 

39  90 

1 : 

: 21 

3 

71 

3 00 

1 

: 4.23 

3 

71 

4 00 

1 

: 5.63 

2.50 

59 

1 40 

1 

: 2.37 

8 

1 90 

24.  90 

1 

: 13.11 

0.50 

11 

3 00 

1 

: 27.27 

15 

3 77 

23  80 

1 

: 6.31 

3 

71 

19  60 

1 

: 27.61 

3 

71 

26  10 

1 

: 36.76 

3 

71 

17  80 

l 

: 25.07 

20 

4 76 

24  90 

1 

: 5.23 

20 

4 76 

71  40 

1 

: 15.00 

42 

6 

9 99 

1 42 

3 50 

1 

: 2.40 

6 

1 42 





12 

2 85 

‘"‘*77  30 

1 

: 27.12 

20 

4 76 

357  00 

1 

: 75.00 

20 

1 4 76 

107  10 

1 

: 22.50 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


643 


Belation  of  specific  duties  to  the  value  in  Germany — Continued. 


Articles. 


TANNING  STUFFS,  DYE-STUFFS,  COLORS— continued. 

Chloroform 

Essences,  extracts,  tinctures,  waters,  containing 
alcohol  or  ether,  for  industrial  and  medicinal 
purposes 

VARNISHES,  LAC,  PUTTY,  AND  GLUES. 

Oil  varnish 

Other  varnishes 

Shoe-blacking 

Gelatine  and  glue 

Sealing-wax 

Putty 

Water-glass 

Starch-gum 

FAT,  OILS,  AND  GREASE,  NOT  FOR  FOOD. 

Olive  oil,  in  barrels  (adulterated) 

Linseed  oil,  in  casks 

Rape-seed  oil,  in  casks 

Other  oil,  in  casks . 

Palm-nut  oil,  solid 

Cocoanut  oil,  solid 

Fish  fat,  train  oil 

Tallow 

Stearine,  palmitine 

Candles 

Fragrant  fats  and  fat  oils,  &c 

Other  perfumery  of  all  kinds 

Soaps,  in  tablets,  balls,  &c 

STONEWARE. 


Mill-stones 

Flint-stones,  whetstones 

Coarse  stone,  cutler’s  work 

CLAY,  PORCELAIN  WARE. 

Smelting  pots,  glazed  pipes,  jars,  &c 

Potter’s  ware: 

Not  glazed „ 

Glazed  

Articles  of  clay  in  connection  with  other  materials. 
Porcelain  ware  and  porcelain-like  ware: 

White . 

Colored,  &c 

GLASSWARE. 

Glass  metal,  crude  optical  glass,  roofing  glass,  en- 
ameling and  glazing  glass,  glass  pipes  and  tubes. 

White  hollow  glass,  not  figured,  not  polished 

Milk  glass  and  alabaster  glass 

Window  and  table  glass,  green,  not  ground 

Mirror  glass,  raw,  not  polished 

Glass,  pressed,  polhished 

Colored  glass,  painted,  gilt 

RAW  METALS,  NOT  PRECIOUS. 

Scales,  filings,  waste 

Scrap  iron 

Lump  iron  


ROUGHLY-WORKED  METALS. 

Malleable  iron  in  rods 

Tires,  plowshares 

Angle-irons 


Unit. 

Rates  of  duty. 

Estimated  value 
of  goods  im- 
ported. 

Relation  of  du- 
ties to  value. 

1 

1 

Marks.  \ 

| 

100  kilos  net. 

20 

$4  76 

$71  40 

1 : 

15.  00 

20 

4 76 

119  00 

1 : 

25.00 

4 

95 

11  40 

1 

18.  05 

20 

4 76 

45  20 

1 

9.  50 

3 

71 

5 90 

1 

8.51 

....do 

'3 

71 

28  50  i 

1 

40  14 

! 3 

71 

59  50 

1 

83.  80 

3 

71 

2 30 

1 

3.24 

...do 

1 

23 

2 10 

i 1 

9.  13 

9 

2 14 

8 50 

! 1 

3.  97 

do 

10 

3 38 

18  50 

l 

„ 

4 

95 

10  70 

1 

11.  26 

9 

2 14 

13  80 

l 

6.  45 

9 

1 2 14 

13  30 

1 

6 21 

....do  

2 

47 

16  60 

1 

35.  52 

2 

47 

15  90 

1 

33  83 

do 

3 1 

71 

15  40 

l 

21.69 

do 

2 

47 

18  30 

l 

38.94 

10 

2 38 

28  50 

1 

11.97 

18 

4 28 

33  30 

1 

7.  55 

....do 

100 

23  80 

76  10 

l 

3.20 

100 

23  80 

285  60 

1 

12.  00 

do 

30 

7 14 

47  60 

1 

6 67 

0. 25 

60 

4 76 

l 

: 709.  33 

0.  25 

60 

8 33 

l 

: 13.9 

1 

23 

88 

1 

3.  83 

do 

2 

47 

1 

23 

2 38 

... 
! 1 

10 

....do 

1 

23 

5 95 

1 

25.  87 

— do 

14 

3 33 

14  28 

1 

4.  29 

14 

3 33 

24  99 

1 : 

7.50- 

14 

3 33 

38  00 

1 

: 11.11 

do 

3 

71 

15  47 

1 

: 21.79 

do 

8 

1 90 

9 52 

1 : 

: 5.01 

10 

2 38 

14  28 

1 

6 

( 5 71 

) 

do 

6 

1 42 

{ 6 18 

>1 

4.40 

( 6 90 

) 

3 

71 

10  94 

1 

15.40 

....do '.. 

24 

5 71 

16  66 

1 

2.  92 

— do 

30 

7 14 

42  84 

1 

6 

1 

23 

37 

1 

1.C0 

1 

33 

1 04 

1 

4. ; 2 

1.  50 

34 

2 38 

1 

7.  00 

2.  50 

59 

4 52 

1 

7.  G6 

2.  50 

59 

3 09 

1 

5.  24 

2. 50 

59 

2 96 

1 

5.  02 

644  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 


Relation  of  specific  duties  to  the  value  in  Germany — Continued. 


Articles. 

Unit. 

Rates  of  duty. 

Estimated  value 
of  goods  im- 
ported. 

Relation  of  du- 
ties to  value. 

[ 

ROUGHLY -WORKED  METALS— continued. 

* I 

Marks. 

■ 

Raw  plates  and  sheets  of  malleable  iron 

100  kilos  net. 

3 

$0  71 

$2  85 

1 : 3.  78 

5 

1 19  ; 

8 67 

1 : 7.  92 

Plates  and  sheets  of  malleable  iron,  polished,  var- 

5 

1 19 

9 52 

1 : 8 

do 

3 

71 

do 

3 

71 

5 82 

1 : 8. 19 

6 

1 42 

7 14 

1 : 5.  03 

do 

3 

71 

7 96 

1 : 11. 12 

do 

6 

1 42 

11  90 

1 : 10.  55 

do  .. 

3 

71 

49  98 

1 : 70.  39 

. do  . 

6 

1 42 

42  84 

1 : 30. 16 

do  . . . 

12 

2 85 

31  89 

1 : 11. 19 

.do 

12 

2 85 

45  22 

1 : 15.  86 

12 

2 85 

107  10 

1 : 37 

MANUFACTURES  OF  METAL  (EXCErT  MACHINES.  &C.). 

2.  50 

59  , 

2 61 

1 : 4.  42 

....do  

3 

71 

6 18 

1 : 8.  58 

do 

3 

71 

do 

3 

71 

do 

3 

71  i 

2 61 

1 : 3.  63 

. . do  . . 

3 

71  ] 

2 85 

1 : 3.  95 

do 

3 

71  1 

4 99 

1 : 6.  93 

3 

71 

11  90 

1 : 16.53 

Rolled  and  drawn  pipes  and  tubes  of  iron  

_ . . do 

5 

1 19 

5 95 

1 : 5 

Wire  tacks 

do  

10 

2 35  ! 

4 76 

1 : 2.  03 

"Fine  manufactures  of  iron,  u.  o.  p.  f _ 

do 

24 

5 71  1 

66  64 

1 : 11.  67 

Needles 

... .do  

60 

14  28 

495  00 

1 : 41.  66 

Writing  pens 

do 

60 

14  28 

238  00 

1 : 16.  66 

Types _ _ 

do  

3 

71 

83  30 

1 : 117.  32 

Manufactures  of  lead: 

Coarse 

do 

6 

1 42 

11  90 

1 : 8.  38 

Fine 

do  . . . 

24 

5 71 

24  99 

1 : 4.  38 

Manufactures  of  zinc: 

Coarse 

....do 

6 

1 42 

16  66 

1 : 11.  73 

Fine 

do 

24 

5 71 

41  65 

1 : 7.  29 

Manufactures  of  tin : 

Coarse 

. _ . .do 

6 

1 42 

54  74 

1 : 38  55 

Fine-  also  lacquered __  ..... 

..do  . 

24 

5 71 

114  24 

1 : 20.  07 

Coarse  manufactures  of  copper  and  brass 

....do  - 

18 

I 4 28 

49  98 

1 : 11.  67 

Articles  of  aluminium,  nickel,  alfenide,  &c 

do 

60 

1 14  28 

123  76 

1 : 8.  47 

LUMBER  AND  CABINET  WOOD. 

Roughly- worked  European : 

Hard 

0.  20 

04 

1 40 

1 : 35 

Soft  

0.  20 

04 

71 

1 : 177.  5 

Hard,  sawn  ... ...... 

do 

1 

238 

1 90 

1 : 7.  93 

Soft  sawn  ............... ............ 

1 

238 

63 

1 : 26.  25 

Not  European  wood : 

. 

Fongh  (hnv  cedar,  cocoa,  ebony)  

do 

0.10 

02 

5 71 

1 : 285 

Sawn  (cedar)  

do 

0.25 

05 

7 61 

| 1 : 152 

Whalebone  in  rough  staves  

....do 

10 

2 38 

523  60 

1 1 : 220  . 

Plates  of  born  

do 

3 

71 

21  42 

i 1 : 30.  F7 

TT npeeled  basket,  willow  . 

do 

0.  40 

09 

3 57 

! 1 ; 39.  67 

Peeled  basket  willow  

do 

3 

71 

4 28 

1 : 6 03 

W ooden  furniture  

do 

3 

71 

35  70 

j 1 : 50.  28 

Wood  cut  in  veneers 

do 

10 

2 38 

Coarse  toys,  not  colored  

do 

10 

2 38 

! 23  80 

i V 10 

Fine  wood  articles  

do 

30 

7 14 

47  60 

1 : 6.  67 

Basketmakers’  articles,  fine.. - 

do 

30 

7 14 

49  98 

1 : 7 

Sievemakers’ articles: 

Coarse 

do 

8 

1 90 

28  56 

1 : 15.  03 

Fine  ...... 

do 

24 

5 71 

57  12 

1 1 : 11. 18 

Straw  plait, inys 

...do 

18 

4 28 

166  60 

! 1 : 38.  93 

Sparterro  goods 

do 

90 

21  42 

228  48 

i 1 : 10.  67 

TAPER  AND  PASTEBOARD. 

Half  worked  materials  for  paper-making,  of  wood, 

straw,  esparto,  <fec  

do 

1 

23 

4 76 

1 : 20.  70 

Slate  paper,  tablets,  polishing  paper,  &c 

1 

23 

28  56 

1 : 124. 17 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF. 


645 


Belation  of  specific  duties  to  the  value  in  Germany — Continued. 


Articles. 

Unit. 

Rates  of  duty. 

Estimated  value 
of  goods  im- 
ported. 

Relation  of  du- 
ties to  value. 

PAPER  AND  PASTEBOARD— continued. 

100  kilos  net. 

Marks. 

10 

1 

$2  38 
! 2 36 

$18  00 

1 

: 7. 56 

do 

10 

25  00 

1 : 

: 10.  50 

Lithographed,  printed,  &c.,  paper  gilt,  silvered 

do  . 

10 

2 38 

29  00 

1 

: 12. 18 

do 

6 

1 42 

11  00 

1 

: 7.75 

Manufactures  of  paper : 

do 

12 

2 85 

52  00 

1 

18.  25 

do  

24 

5 71 

52  00 

1 

9.  11 

Paper  bangings ” 

do 

24 

5 71 

30  94 

1 

5.  42 

Molded  work” of  statuary  pasteboard,  asphalte, 
painted ' 

do  

12 

2 85 

30  00 

1 

: 10.53 

LEATHER,  MANUFACTURES  OF  LEATHER. 

Half  tanned  or  tanned,  not  otherwise  finished, 

. . _ .do 

3 

71 

79  73 

1 

112.  30 

....do 

18 

4 28 

76  16 

1 

17.79 

Sole  leather  " 

do 

36 

8 56 

53  55 

1 

6.  26 

Brussels,  Danish  glove  leather,  Cordovan  maro- 

. . do 

36 

8 56 

214  20 

1 

: 25.02 

Coarse  shoemakers’,  &c.,  articles  of  uncolored 

50 

11  90 

173  74 

1 

: 14. 6 

Coarse  shoemakers’,  &c.,  articles  of  gray  packing 
linen 

do 

50 

11  90 

78  54 

1 

6.  6 

...do  

70 

16  66 

428  40 

1 

25.  71 

Leather  gloves 

do  . . . 

100 

23  08 

1,  677  90 
428  40 

1 

70.  47 

Fur  coats,  lined  fur  covers 

do 

150 

35  70 

1 

12 

TEXTILE  AND  FELT  INDUSTRY— CLOTHES. 

Human  hair 

100 

23  08 

1,  237  60 
109  48 

1 

: 52 

Combed  wool 

....  do 

2 

47 

1 

: 232.  94 

Cotton  yarn : 

Single  twist,  raw — 

Up  to  No.  17  English 

do 

12 

2 85 

37  60 

1 

13. 19 

Above  17  to  45  English 

...  .do 

18 

4 28 

46  41 

1 

10.  84 

Above  45  to  60  English 

do 

24 

5 71 

55  93 

1 

9.  80 

Above  60  to  79  English 

do 

30 

7 14 

79  73 

1 

11.17 

Above  79 

do 

36 

8 56 

109  48 

1 

12.  79 

Double  twist,  raw — 

Up  to  No.  17  English 

do 

15 

3 57 

43  77 

i 

12.  26 

Above  17  to  45  English 

do 

21 

4 99 

52  36 

1 

10.49 

Above  45  to  60  English 

do 

27 

6 42 

69  02 

! 1 

10.  77 

Above  60  to  79  English 

....do 

33 

7 85 

102  34 

! 1 

13.  04 

Above  79 

39 

9 28 

126  14 

1 

13.  §9 
8.  92 

Single  or  double  twist,  bleached  or  dyed — 

Up  tt>  No.  17  English 

do 

24 

5 71 

50  93 

1 

Above  17  to  45  English 

do 

30 

7 14 

57  12 

1 

8 

Above  45  to  60  English 

do 

36 

8 56 

70  21 

1 

8.20 

Above  60  to  79  English 

do  

42 

9 99 

91  63 

1 

9. 17 

Above  79 

... .do  

48 

11  42 

123  76 

1 

10.  84 

Treble  or  more  twist,  raw,  bleached,  dyed  . . . 

do 

70 

16  60 

101  15 

1 

6.  09 

Multiple-twisted  sewing  thread 

....do 

70 

16  60 

178  50 

1 

10.  75 

Wicks,  unplaited 

...  do 

24 

5 71 

30  74 

1 

5.  38 

Linen  yarn : 

Not  dyed,  not  printed,  not  bleached — 

Up  to  No.  5 English 

do 

5 

1 19 

13  09  | 

1 

11 

Above  5 to  8 English 

do 

l 19  | 

19  04  i 

1 

16 

Above  8 to  20  English 

do 

6 

1 42  ; 

29  75  ! 

1 

20.  95 

Above  20  to  35  English 

do 

9 

2 14 

41  65 

1 

19. 46 

Above  35 

12 

2 85 

90  00 

1 

31.  58 

Dyed,  printed,  bleached: 

Up  to  No.  20,  English 

12 

2 85 

39  27  ! 

1 

13.  78 

Above  20,  to  35 

15 

3 57  : 

52  36 

1 

14.  95 

Above  35 

do 

20 

4 76 

89  25  ! 

1 

18.  75 

Thread 

. do 

70 

16  66 

.107  10 

1 

6.42 

Silk,  not  dyed 

Free,  j 

Floss  silk,  not  dyed,  waste  of  dyed  silk 

....  do  

Free,  j 

Silk  wadding 

24 

U-I  1 

5 71 

190  40 

1 : 

: 33.35 

Silk,  floss  silk,  dyed,  lacets 

....do 

36 

8 56 

737  80 

1 : 

: 86. 19 

Yarn  of  cattle  hair,  single  or  double 

do 

3 

0 71  ! 

21  42 

1 ; 

; 30. 17 

Woolen  yarn,  single,  not  dyed  Genappe  mohair 
alpacca 

3 

0 71  j 

111  86 

1 : 

: 157.  55 

64-6  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Relation  of  specific  duties  to  the  value  in  Germany — Continued. 


Articles. 


TEXTILE  AND  FELT  INDUSTBY— CLOTHES—  Continued. 

Other  raw  woolen  yam,  single,  not  dyed 

Woolen  yarn,  single,  dyed,  (Genappe,  &c.) 

Other  woolen  yarn,  single,  bleached 

Woolen  yarn,  "double,  not  dyed  (Genappe,  &c.)  ... 

Other  woolen  yams,  double,  not  dyed  (raw) 

Woolen  yarn,  double,  dyed  (Gennape,  &c.) 

Other  woolen  yams,  double,  dyed,  bleached 

Woolen  yarn,  treble,  or  more  twist  (Genappe,  &c.) 

Other  woolen  yarn 

Cotton  waddings 

Wool  waddings 

BOPEMAKEBS’  ABTICLES. 

Hopes,  girts,  braces,  hose 

Other  rope  maker’s  work,  dyed,  bleached 

Cotton  fishing-nets,  new 

Coarse  and  dyed  foot  mgs 

Foot  rugs  ot  wool  and  yarns  of  hair  of  cattle 

Foot  mgs  of  wool  or  other  animal  hair  (except  of 

cattle  and  horses) 

Asphaltum  felts,  roofing-felt 

Coarse  felts,  not  printed,  not  dyed 

Other  felts,  not  printed 

Woolen  felts,  felt  articles,  printed 

MISCELLANEOUS  ABTICLES. 

Oil-cloths  of  wool,  and  shoes  of  cloth  ledges  and 

shreds 

Horse-hair  plaitings,  also  mixed  with  other  spin- 
nings   

Cotton  tissue,  raw,  close 

Quite  coarse  tissue  of  raw  spinning  of  cotton- 

waste  

Cotton  webbings,  bleached,  close,  also  finished, 

except  cut  velvets 

Cotton  cut  velvets  

Cotton  tulle,  raw  and  not  figured 

Cotton  (webbings)  tissue,  not  close,  raw,  except 

curtain  stuffs  and  tulles 

Cotton  curtain  stuffs,  bleached  and  finished 

Linen,  ticking,  drilling,  not  dyed,  not  printed,  not 
bleached,  containing  in  the  warp  and  woof  to- 
gether on  a surface  of  4 square  centimeters: 

TJp  to  40  threads 

Above  40  to  80  threads 

Above  80  to  120  threads 

Above  120  threads 

Linen,  ticking,  drilling,  dyed,  printed,  bleached, 
&c„  containing  in  warp  and  woof  together  on  a 
surface  of  4 square  centimeters : 

Up  to  120  threads 

Above  120  threads 

Linen  damask 

Quite  coarse  webbings,  of  raw  spinnings  of  silk- 

waste  

Piece  goods,  &.c.,  of  pure  silk,  floss  silk,  also  com- 
bined with  metallic  threads 

Manufactures  of  silk,  mixed  with  other  spinning 

materials  and  also  with  metallic  threads 

Stuffs  of  silk  and  floss-silk,  in  connection  with  cot- 
ton   

Stuffs  of  silk,  in  connection  with  linen  and  wool.. 
Woolen  cloths,  n.  o.  p.  f. : 

Weighing  more  than  200  grams  per  1 square 

me;  er  of  tho  surface  woven 1 

Weighing  less  than  200  grams ; 

Manufactures  of  wool,  printed  (except  rugs,  felts,  ; 
hosiery) : 

Weighing  more  than  200  grams  per  1 square 

meter  woven 

Weighing  less  than  200  grams. .'. 


Unit. 

Hates  of  duty. 

Estimated  value 
of  goods  im- 
ported. 

Helation  of  du- 
ties to  value. 

100  kilos  net 

Marks. 

8 

$0  71 

$99  96 

1 : 

: 140.  79 

do 

8 

0 71 

128  42 

1 : 

: 181. 15 

....do 

3 

0 71 

110  67 

1 ; 

; 155.  87 

do 

3 

0 71 

139  23 

1; 

; 196.  08 

do 

3 

0 71 

121  38 

1 : 

: 170.  96 

24 

5 71 

142  80 

1 ; 

; 25 

24 

5 71 

142  80 

1 ; 

; 25  • 

do 

24 

5 71 

147  56 

1 ; 

: 25.84 

24 

5 71 

119  00 

1 : 

; 20.84 

do 

1.50 

0 35 

35  70 

1 ; 

: 102 

3 

0 71 

85  68 

1 : 

: 120.  68 

....do  

24 

5 71 

21  42 

1 

3.  75 

10 

2 38 

34  51 

1 

14.5 

3 

0 71 

59  50 

1 

83.  80 

do 

24 

5 71 

28  56 

1 

5 

do 

100 

23  80 

35  70 

1 

1.5 

100 

23  80 

83  30 

1 

3.5 

3 

0 71 

7 76 

1 

6.70 

do 

3 

0 71 

59  50 

1 

83.  80 

do 

100 

23  80 

95  2 

1 

4 

do  . ... 

100 

23  80 

190  40 

1 

8 

135 

32  13 

107  10 

1 : 

: 3.33 

48 

11  42 

214  20 

1 ; 

; 18.75 

....do 

80 

19  04 

69  02 

1 ; 

: 3.62 

10 

2 38 

20  33 

1: 

: 8.50 

do 

100 

23  80 

78  54 

l! 

: 3.30 

120 

28  50 

216  58 

1 : 

: 7.58 

do 

80 

19  04 

630  70 

1: 

; 33.12 

120 

28  56 

110  67 

1 ; 

: 3.82 

230 

54  74 

221  34 

1 : 

4.04 

....do 

12 

2 85 

42  84 

1 : 

: 15.03 

24 

5 71 

73  78 

1: 

; 12.92 

30 

8 56 

92  82 

1 

; 10.59 

60 

14  28 

154  70 

1 

: 10.83 

60 

14  28 

119  00 

1 

a 31 

120 

28  50 

238  00 

1 

8.  33 

150 

35  70 

154  70 

1 

4.33 

10 

2 38 

142  80 

1 ; 

: 60 

do 

800 

190  40* 

1,  713  60 

1 ; 

9 

800 

190  40 

833  00 

1 

: 4.38 

450 

107  10 

952  00 

1 

: 8.88 

450 

107  10 

833  00 

1 

: 7.78 

...do  

135 

32  13 

209  44 

1 

: a 52 

. . do 

220 

52  30 

273  70 

1 

5.23 

150 

35  70 

261  80 

1 

: 7.33 

do 

220 

| 52  30 

| 313  30 

1 

: 5.98 

REVISION  OF  THE  TARIFF, 


647 


Relation  of  specific  duties  to  the  value  in  Germany — Continued. 


Articles. 

Unit. 

Rates  of  duty. 

Estimated  value 
of  goods  im- 
ported. 

Relation  of  du- 
ties to  value. 

miscellaneous  articles— continued. 

Maries. 

Woolen  plushes 

100  kilos  net. 

150 

$35  70 

$238  00 

1 : 

: 6.67 

W oven  woolen  shawls : 

do 

300 

71  00 

226  10 

1 : 

3.17 

450 

107  70 

690  20 

1 : 

6.44 

Hosiery: 

do 

120 

28  56 

285  60 

1 : 

: 10 

do 

100 

23  80 

190  40 

1 : 

: 8 

Of  silk 

...do  

800 

190  40 

2,  618  00 

1 : 

: 13.75 

Of  half  silk  

...do  

800 

190  40 

1,071  00 

1 

: 5.63 

do 

100 

23  80 

249  90 

1 : 

: 10.50 

Wool,  printed— 

Weighing  more  than  200  grams  per  1 

do 

150 

35  70 

238  00 

1: 

6.67 

do 

220 

52  36 

595  00 

1 

: 11 

Lace  and  button  makers’  work: 

....do 

120 

28  56 

202  30 

1 

7.  08 

. . . .do 

100 

23  80 

214  20 

1 

9 

Of  silk 

do 

800 

190  00 

833  00 

1 

4.  38 

Of  half  silk 

....do  

450 

107  10 

595  00 

1 

5.  56 

do 

150 

35  70 

261  80 

1 

7.  33 

Laces,  embroideries,  blondes : 

do 

350 

83  30 

952  00 

1 

11.4 

do  . 

800 

190  40 

7, 140  00 

1 

37.5 

do 

150 

35  70 

1, 904  00 

1 

533.  39 

do 

300 

71  40 

714  00 

1 

10 

Ready-made  wearing  apparel  and  underclothes, 

millinery,  n.  o.  p.  f : 

Silk  and  floss  silk  . 

do 

1,200 

285  60 

1, 666  00 

1 

5.84 

Embroidered  la.ee  clothes  

do 

1,  200 

285  60 

3, 570  00 

1 

12.  5 

Half  silk  and  millinery 

do 

675 

160  65 

714  00 

1 

4.44 

Clothes  and  millinery  of  tissues  coated  with 

caoutchouc 

. . . .do 

130 

30  74 

357  00 

1 ; 

: 11.61 

Linen  blouses 

do 

60 

14  28 

71  40 

1 : 

5 

Linen  and  cotton  under  clothes  

do 

150 

35  70 

261  80 

1 : 

7.33 

Silk  bats,  for  gentlemen  

....  do 

300 

71  40 

1,428  00 

1 : 

: 20 

Felt  hats,  for  gentlemen  

do 

180 

42  08 

476  00 

1 : 

: 11. 12 

Bonnets,  trimmed  (except  of  straw) 

piece 

1 

23 

4 76 

1 ; 

: 20.70 

Ornamental  feathers,  dressed 

100  kilos  net. 

900 

214  00 

2,  380  00 

1 : 

: 11.12 

Artificial  flowers 

do 

900 

214  00 

11  90 

1 ; 

: 5. 56 

Artificial  flowers,  parts 

do 

900 

214  00 

119  00 

1 : 

: 0.56 

Caoutchouc  articles : 

Caoutchouc  threads,  n.  o.  p.  f _ 

do 

3 

71 

285  60 

1 : 

: 402.  25 

Caoutchouc  threads,  overspun 

do 

40 

9 52 

357  00 

1 : 

: 37.5 

Waxed  cloth,  leather  cloth 

do 

30 

7 14 

52  12 

1 : 

: 7.30 

Bookbinders’  cloth _ 

do 

30 

7 14 

59  50 

1 

: 8.33 

Waxed  muslin,  waxed  taffeta 

do 

50 

11  90 

119  00 

1 

: 10 

Manufactures  of  caoutchouc,  coarse,  not  lac- 

quered   

do 

40 

9 52 

142  80 

1 : 

: 15 

Ebonite  (hard  rubber)  goods 

do 

40 

9 52 

238  00 

1 

: 25 

Manufactures  of  caoutchouc,  flne 

...  .do 

60 

14  28 

226  00 

1 

: 15.83 

Tissues,  coated  with  caoutchouc 

do 

90 

21  42 

238  00 

1 : 

: 11.11 

Hosiery,  in  connection  with  caoutchouc 

do. 

90 

21  42 

33«  00 

1 

: 15.55 

Trimmings,  in  connection  with  caoutchouc 

— do 

90 

21  42 

333  00 

1 

: 15.65 

Carriages  and  sleighs,  with  leather,  and  upholster- 

ers’ work  

....do 

150 

35  70 

452  20 

1 

: 12.67 

Furniture,  upholstered,  uncovered 

do 

30 

7 14 

47  60 

1 

: 6.67 

Fui  uiturc,  upholstered,  covered 

do 

40 

9 52 

71  40 

1 

: 75 

Locomotivo  engines 

do 

8 

1 90 

20  94 

1 ; 

: 11.02 

Portable  engines 

do 

8 

1 90 

20  23 

1 

: 10.65 

Boilers  of  malleable  iron 

do 

5 

1 19 

8 33 

1 

: 7 

Other  machines : 

Chiefly  of  wood 

...do  

3 

71 

16  66 

1 

: 23.46 

Chiefly  of  cast  iron  

do 

3 

71 

13  56 

1 

: 19.10 

Chiefly  of  malleable  iron 

do 

5 

1 19 

14  75 

1 

: 12. 39 

Chiefly  of  other  metals,  not  precious 

do 

8 

1 90 

56  40 

1 

: 29.68 

Fnrtepianos,  key  boards 

....do 

30 

7 14 

57  12 

1 

: 8 

Other  musical  instruments 

do 

30 

7 14 

83  30 

1 

: 67 

Spectacles  and  opera-glasses 

do 

120 

28  56 

761  60 

1 

: 27.  02 

Parts  of  clocks  and  watches,  and  movements 

do 

60 

14  28 

595  00 

1 

: 41.67 

Pendules  and  clocks 

200 

47  06 

142  80 

1 

: 3 

Fire-arms 

60 

14  28 

214  20 

1 

: 15 

648  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

Relation  of  specific  duties  to  the  value  in  Germany — Continued. 


Articles. 

Unit. 

Rates  of  duty. 

Estimated  value 
of  goods  im- 
ported. 

Relation  of  du- 
ties to  value. 

FAXCY  ARTICLES. 

Precious  stones,  also  imitations,  corals,  pearls,  not 
set 

100  kilos  net 

Marks. 

60 

$14  28 
142  80 

$1, 190  00 
7, 140  00 

1 : 83. 33 

Fancy  goods,  wholly  or  partly  of  precious  metals, 
genuine  pearls,  corals,  &c 

. _ _ do 

60 

1 : 5 

Gold  and  silver  leaf,  not  genuine 

....do  .. 

Fancy  goods,  wholly  or  partly  of  amber,  celluloid, 
ivory,  agate,  jet,  lava,  meerschaum,  mother  of 
pearl,  and  tortoise  shells,  of  not  precious  metals 
gilded  or  silvered,  or  covered  with  gold  or  sil- 
ver, &c 

do 

200 

47  60 

476  00 

1 : 10 

Fancy  articles  (gent’s  and  ladies’  ornaments,  arti- 
cles of  toilet,  &c.),  wholly  or  partly  of  alumi- 
nium, of  other  base  metals,  but  of  fine  workman- 
ship, &c . 

200 

47  60 

285  60 

1 : 6 

Fancy  articles  of  wav  _ _ 

. .do  . . 

200 

47  60 

220  15 

1 : 4.  63 

Wax  beads 

....do 

120 

28  56 

618  80 

1 : 21.  32 

Umbrellas 

120 

28  56 

214  20 

1 : 7.  5 

Fans 

do 

200 

47  60 

380  80 

1 : 8 

Hairdressers’,  &c.,  articles 

do 

200 

47  60 

571  20 

1:  12 

INDEX  TO  ARTICLES, 


A. 


Acids,  sulphuric  and  other 

Agricultural  implements 

Albumen 

Alcohol 

Alcoholic  preparations 

Ale * 

Alizarine  assistant  

Alizarine j. 

Alkalies  (see  also  “Soda”  and  “Potash”) 

Alkaloids 

Almonds 

Alloys 

Alum 

Ammonia , 

Ammoniac,  sal 

Ammunition 

Aniline  oils 

Aniline  dyes  and  colors  ( see  also  “Dyes”) 

Animals,  live 

Animal  charcoal 

Antimony,  regulus  of 

Antiquities 

Art  collections 

Art,  works  of 

Articles  of  food 

Wholly  or  partially  manufactured,  <fcc 

Unenumerated 

In  a crude  condition 

Manufactured,  ready  for  consumption,  &c 
Of  voluntary  use,  luxuries,  &c 


Page. 

.184, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199 

460,533 

194 

177, 189-190, 513, 537 

177 

459, 502 

.. 197,198 

539 

178,513 

178 

210, 539 

: 414 

195 

.178, 192, 194, 197, 199, 207, 208 

178,192 

429 

538 

255, 534-538 

112, 453, 459, 551-553 

207 

382 

469 

469 

466-470 

1 112, 185, 550-553 

558-574 

184 

553-557 

576-587 

587-592 


Bags  and  bagging  _ _ 

Baking-powders 

Balmorals 

Bar-iron 

Barytes 

Baskets 

Bay-oil  

Beans 

Beads 

Bed  sides 

Bed  spreads 

Beer 

Belts 

Benzole 

Berlin  blue 

Beltings 

Bessemer-steel  rails 

Bessemer  rods 

Beveled  glass 


B. 

95-98,  496,  497,  514 

180 

314,322 

358,  359,  361,  372,  374,  375,  378 

194,196 

21 

206 

135-138 

21 

292,323 

83 

459, 502 

292,323 

538 

177, 194 

291,323 

361,  432, 474 

411,542 

.143-145, 534 


649 


650 


INDEX  TO  ARTICLES. 


Bichromate  of  potash.  ( See  “Potash.”) 
Bichromate  of  soda.  ( See  1 1 Soda.  ’ ’ ) 

Bindings 

Blankets 

Bleaching-powders y 

Blooms,  steel 

Blooms,  iron 

Bookings 

Boiler-plate,  iron 

Bone-black 

Books  

Bonnets 

Bonnet  materials 

Borax 

Braces 

Braids 

Brandy 

Brass 

Brazil  nuts 

Breadstuffs 

Bricks,  fire 

Bristles 

Bronze , 

Bronze-powder 

Brushes 

Bottles 

Bulbs 

Bunting 

Burlaps 

Buttons 

Button  materials 


Pag& 


.11,  21,  22,  25,  53, 120,  291, 323 
_.22, 45, 292,  300,  314,  315,  322 
182 


349-351,  370,  520 

370 

292, 323 

371 

207 

218,  219,  222,  223,  459,  468 

291 

24 

194 

-21,291,323 

11,  20,  21,  22,  23,  25,  53, 120,  291,  323 

441,500, 502 

414, 533 

541 

112, 459 

192 

205 

. 414 

417-420 

21, 199. 204 

145, 146,  162, 163, 198, 502 

136 

316/322 

94-100,  496,  497 

. 20,  21,  46,  67,  118-120,  292,  323,  415 
25,  119,  120,  477 


Cabinets,  collections  for 

Canned  vegetables 

Candied  fruits 

Canvas  hose 

Canvas,  sail 

Caps 

Caps,  Scotch 

Caps,  percussion 

Carpets 

Card-cases 

Carriages 

Car-wheels 

Castor-oil 

Castor-beans 

Cassimeres 

Cement 

Cement,  Portland 

Chalk,  red 

Champagne 

Chestnuts 

Chemicals 

Cherries 

Cherry-juice 

Chinese  blue 

Chin  aware 

Cheese 

Chloroform 

Chlorides  (see  also  “Chemicals”) 

Chocolate 

Cinchonidia 

Cinchona  bark 

Cigars 

Citron 


469 

210-212 

539 

100-103 

490 

291 

77-79 

429 

21~  23, 110-116,  292,  300,  319,  323,  329,  497 


459,  515-520 

371, 409 

192, 197,198 

197, 198 

22,  271, 275 

460 

146 

194 

162,502 

541 

112,  171-182, 184-199,  460 
217 

500 

177 

147 

216 

199 

194 

216 

178,  187,  190 

187,  190 

163-165,  545-547 

209,  210,  217,  539 


INDEX  TO  ARTICLES. 


651 


Page. 

Clay,  prepared 195 

Clay  pipes 166-168,  192 

Cloaks 20,  21,  45,  69,  323 

Clocks 21,  138,  459,  533 

Clothing 20,  21,  22,  23,  45,  69,  290,  291,  292,  318,  322,  432,  442 

Coal 109,  356,  374,  376,  402,  404,  437,  455,  459,  521,  532 

Coal-tar  products 534,  538 

Cocoa 460 

Cocoanuts 541 

Cobalt  oxide 413 

Cobalt  ore 413 

Coffee 458 

Coke 356,  404,  532 

Colors 177, 193-196,  534 

Compounds,  chemical 178,  198 

Combs 21 

Cooperage 513-515 

Copper 413,  414,  516,  533 

Copper,  sulphate  of 199,256 

Copperas 194 

Cords 22,  291,  323 

Cordage * 490 

Cork 460 

Corsets 67,  72-76 

Cotton  embroideries 15,  20,  21,  46,  48,  63,  64,  65,  67,  490-496 

Cotton  manufactures 21,  22,  45,  46,  53,  63-65,  79-87,  460,  472,  495,  496 

Cotton,  spool 67,  87,  89-94 

Cotton  ties 350,  351,  376,  377,  530 

Counterpanes 83 

Covers  , 22,  292,  323 

Cream  tartar 192, 194, 199 

Crinoline  cloth __i 86, 87 

Crochet  goods 120 

Crockery  ware 149-155 

Crystals,  tin 196 

Curtains 21, 292, 495 

Currants 210, 214, 216, 539 

Cutlery 422-429 

D. 

Dates 539 

Diamonds 138, 139, 218, 460 

Distilled  spirits 189-190, 537, 545, 547 

Dolls 21,117 

Dolmans 45, 323 

Drawers 21, 22, 23, 26 

Drawings 469 

Dried  fruits 209, 210, 214, 539 

Dress  goods .17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 45, 46, 48, 49, 53, 271, 291,  322 

Drugs __ 171-179, 192, 197, 207, 460 

Druggets i 23, 292, 323 

Dry-goods 15, 16, 20, 33, 46, 51, 53, 61,  316 

Dry-plates • 161 

Dyes -192, 197, 255, 534-538 

Dye-stuffs 15, 112, 177, 255, 309,  437,  535 

Dye-wood  extracts 177, 255 

E. 

Earthenware  — 121, 147, 148, 149-155,  460 

Earths 194 

Electrotype  plates 222,  223 

Electroplated  ware 416 

Embroideries 10, 15,  20,  21, 22,  25,  46,  48,  63,  64,  65,  67,  68, 490-496 

Engravings 469 

Extracts : 

Dyewood 177 

Indigo 177 


652 


INDEX  TO  ARTICLES. 


Fans 

Felt 

Felt,  piano 

Ferro-manganese 

Fertilizers 

Fig  blue 

Figs 

Filberts 

Fire-arms 

Fire-bricks 

Fish 

Fish  bladders..^ 

Fish  glue 

Flax 

Flax,  manufactures  of. 

Flannels 

Flocks 

Flower  seeds 

Food,  articles  of 

Frankfort  Black 

Fringes 

Fruits 

Fruit  juice 

Fruits: 

Dried 

Candied 

Green 

Preserved 

Sugared 

Furs 


F. 


Page. 


21 

__290,  323,  517 

260 

406 

177 

___ 177 

210,  217,  539 

539,  541 

429 

192 

459 

168 

168-171 

.100-103, 104,  106,  108, 109,  460,  489 

21-22,  100-104, 110,  323, 489 

23, 45, 267,  300,  314,  315,  322 

291 

135,138 

112, 185,  460, 550-553 

177 

21,22,  46,  291,323 

112,  460,  538-542,  546-547 

147,500 

210,539 

539 

139,  212, 213,  539,  540,  541 

216,  217,  539-540 

210,  217,  539 

21,460 


Galloons 

Garden  seeds 

Gelatine 

German  silver  .> 

Gimps 

Ginger  ale 

Ginger,  root 

Glass: 

Beveled 

Plate  and  cylinder. 

Glassware 

Glauber  salts 

Gloves,  kid,  and  other. 

Glue ; 

Glycerine 

Gold  size . 

Goat  hair 

Gorings 

Granite 

Grapes 

Grasses 

Green  fruit 

Gunny  cloth 

Guns 

Gun  materials 


O. 

21,  23,  53,  291,323 

- 135-138 

122, 161, 192 

413,414 

.21,  291,  323 

502 

217 

143, 145,  534 

142, 143, 145, 155, 161,  460,  521 

. 147 

__  . 178,195 

20, 21,  23,  26,  29,  45,  48,  49,  67,  68,  477-485 

_ ""II'IIIIIIIH”  193 

183 

30,291 

323 

122 

136, 213,  539-540 

136 

139,  212,  213,  539-542 

95-100 

429 

429 


Hair,  goat 

Hair  cloth 

Hamburg  edgings 

Handkerchiefs 

Hardware 


H. 


* 30,291 

_ 21 

15, 46,  63,  65,  67,  68,  490  496 

11,21,25, 292 

519, 533* 


INDEX  TO  ARTICLES. 


653 


Page. 

Harness 515-520 

Hassocks 292,323 

Hats - T 291,314,  322 

Hat-bands 413 

Hat  materials 24 

Hemp,  manufactures  of 21, 22, 104-110,  292, 323,  460,489 

Hoops: 

Iron  349,  351,  375 

Steel - 370,372 

Hosiery 17,  20, 21,  22,  23,  26,  27,  46, 67,  68,  271,  296,  486,497 

Hose,  fire 100-103 

Hydraulic  hose — 100-103 

I. 

Indigo i— - — 177, 181,  255 

India  rubber  goods 21 

Ingots,  steel . 349,  351,  370 

Ingots,  cogged 349,351 

Insertings - 22, 60 

Iron: 

Hoops 349,351,375 

Bar,  scrap,  &c 358, 359,  361, 372, 364,  375,  377 

Ore. 355,  374,  376-392,  400,  403,  447,  452,  454,  526,  528,  531,  532 

Pig 121,  355,  356,  356,  358,  361,  370,  376,  377,  400-409,  454,  455,  475,  522-525,  531 

Plate 374 

Pyrites 393 

Sheet 349,  350,  370,  371,  374, 375,  378,  379, 382,  387, 390, 531 

Steel  cotton-ties 349-351, 376,  377, 530 

Taggers 349, 350, 370,  371,  374, 377,  378, 381,  382, 387,  390, 391 

Wire  rods - 353, 354, 370,  371, 542 

Iron  and  steel,  manufacturers  of- --347-392,  409,  412,  416,  417,  427,  431,  432,  460,  521,  533 

Isinglass 168 

Italian  cloth 2Q,  23,  45,  316,  322 


Jackets 

Japan  gold  size 

Jet,  and  imitation  of 

Jewelry 

Jute 

Jute,  manufacturers  of. 


Kaolin 

Knit  goods 


Laces 

Lastings 

Lead 

Lead,  acetate  of. 

Lead  ores 

Leather  goods  __ 

Lemons 

Lemon  peel 

Limes 

Linen  goods 

Linen  hose 

Linings 

Linoleum 

Liquors 

Lumber 


J. 


323 

183 

21 


.21,138, 139 

95-100,  437,  489 

.21, 22,  94-100, 104, 110,  114,  292, 323,  489 


K. 


196 

20, 76, 77-79, 271,  272, 292, 300,  314, 315,  322 


L. 


.20, 21, 22, 23, 25,  46, 48, 60, 64,  65, 72, 291, 292, 495 

25,  266,  477 

195,196,  410,516 

193 

177, 196 

21,459,  515,  520 

212,  539-542 

- _._209,  210,539 

217 

21, 22,  46,  53,  67, 105-110,  489,  490 

i 100-103 

23,45,322 

23 

500-506, 545-547 

344, 427,  437 


654 


INDEX  TO  ARTICLES. 


M. 


Page. 


Machinery  — 421, 486, 533 

Manila 489 

Manufactures: 


Cotton.  ( See  “Cotton manufactures.”) 

Flax.  (See  “Flax,  manufacturers  of.”) 

Iron  and  steel 347-392, 409, 412, 416, 417,  427, 431, 432, 460, 520-533 

Jute.  (See  “Jute,  manufacturers  of.”) 

Marble 122,123-127 

Silks.  (See  “Silks.”) 

Wood 459 

Wool 17,  20-23,  31,  45,  46,  53,  116,  232-242,  249,  252,  254,  259,  265-267, 

269-336,  432,  462,  470-476, 546-7. 


Mats 23,113, 292,  323 

Mattings 114, 117 

Marble 123-127 


Menthol 

Medals — 

Medicines 

Mineral  waters 

Mitts 

Mohair  cloth  _ _ 

Molasses 

Morphia 

Morphine 

Mungo 

Musical  boxes  - - 
Musical  goods  __ 
Muslins,  Swiss  _ 
Mustard 


- 205-207 

469 
441 
161 
23,60 
25,34,477 
129,  546-547 
199 
198 
291 

- 140-141 

.140-141,459 
~ 495,496 

216 


N. 

Nails- — — 361,  372,  374 

Nets • 25,  291,  323 

Nickel 412,  413,  414 

Nitro-benzole 538 

Nitrite  of  soda 538 

Noils 290,291 

Nuts - — 210, 539,  541,  546-7 


O. 


Oatmeal 


216 


Oils,  essential  and  other. 

Oils,  aniline 

Oil  cloth 

Olive  oil 


178, 183, 192, 194, 198, 199, 268,  441 

- — 538 

23, 113 

192, 204,  209,  212,  216, 4'41 


Opium 183 

Oranges 212,  213,  539-542 

Orange  peel. . 209,  210,  217;  539 

Ores 193, 355, 374, 376, 392-400, 403,  437, 447, 452, 454, 526, 528,  531, 532 

Oreide 414 


P. 


Paints 

Paintings 

Paper 

Papier-machA 

Paris-white— 

Parasols 

Peas 

Peanuts 

Pens,  steel 

Pencils 

Pepper 


177,187, 193-196 
460,  466,  469,  470 

220, 459 

21 

193, 195 

13,14,21 

135-138,  210,  212 

541 

420 

21 

216 


INDEX  TO  ARTICLES. 


655 


Page. 

Percussion  caps. — 429 

Perfumery - 20, 21 

Personal  effects 430,442 

Photographs 469 

Piano-felt 260 

Pickles  - _ . 21G 

Pi g-iron _121^  475, *522-525,  531 

Pipes,  tobacco 166, 192 

Pistols 429 

Plants 136 

Plate  glass 142-145,  155-161,  460,  521,  534 

Plows,  steel 421 

Plums 539 

Plushes 10,  20,  21,  24,  25,  34,  36,  441 

Pocket-books 21 

Pork - 427,462 

Potash,  bichromate  and  other 194-196, 197,  198,  199,  207,  208,  256 

Portland  cement 146 

Powders: 

Polishing 177 

Baking 180,192 

Bleaching- 182 

Toilet * 21 

Prepared  vegetables 216 

Preserved  fruits 216,  217,  539 

Printing  presses — 421 

Provisions  112,  216,  459,  460 

Prunes.. 210,  216,  539 

Prunelles 539 

Prussian  blue 194 

Putty  .... 195 

Pyrites,  iron 193 


Quinia,  sulphate  of. 
Quinine 


<1 


178, 187 

.178, 187,  190,  191, 199 


Rags,  woolen 

Railroad  iron 

Raisins 

Ramie 

Regulus  of  antimony. 

Ribbons  

Rice 

Rubber  goods 

Rugs 


K. 


291 

361. 411 

210, 539 

489 

382 

11,  20,  21,  23,  25,  46 

509-512,  546-547 

21 

.21,  23,  113,  114,  292,  323 


Sacks,  grain 

Saddlery 

Sail,  duck 

Salt 

Salts,  Epsom,  and  other 

Salt,  cake 

Salts,  Glauber 

Sal  ammoniac 

Saltpeter 

Santonine 

Satins 

Scarfs 

Scotch  caps 

Scrap  iron 

Scrap  steel  — 

Screws,  wood 


497 

516, 517 

490 

121,  345,  437 

195 

178 

178, 195 

178, 192,  208 

193 

198, 199 

1, 441 

11,25,292 

77-79 

372,  374,  375,  377 

374, 377 

516,517 


656 


INDEX  TO  ARTICLES. 


Page. 

Screens - - - 292,  323 


Serges 266 

Shawls 11, 17, 20,  22, 25,  45,  271, 290,  292,  293,  300,  322 

Sheet-iron  and  steel 349,  350,  370,  371,  374,  375,  378,  382,  387,  390,  531 

Shirts 21,22,23 

Shoddy , 271,  290,  291 

Shooks 513-515 


54-60,  67,  275,  277,  290,  293,  430,  441,  460,  477,  486-488,  546-7 

Sisal  grass 489 

Smokers’  articles 217 

Soap,  Castile  and  other 21,  209,  212,  217,  513 

Soda-water 502 

Soda: 

Ash 121, 178, 180, 182, 184,  189,  513 

Bicarbonate  of 178, 180, 195 

Bichromate  of 256 

Carbonate  of - 178,  180, 195 

Caustic 121, 178, 180, 182, 184, 192, 195,  513 

Crystals 182 

Phosphate  of 195 

Sal !- 178, 180, 185, 189,  513 

Sulphate  of 178 

Nitrite  of 538 

Spiegeleisen 377, 406 

Spelter — 382,  414 

Spices 193,  216,  460 

Spirits: 

Distilled 189, 190, 537,  545-547 

Methylated 1 190 

Sponges 188 

Sporting  articles .. 429 

Spool  cotton 67, 87,  89-94 

Stationery 217 

Statuary —123, 125, 126,  460,  466-470 

Steel: 


Blooms 

Blanks,  billets,  &c 

Hoops  ( see  also  “Cotton-ties  ”) 

Ingots 

Manufactures  of 

Pens 

Plates 

Plows 


349,  351,  370, 520 

349-351 

370, 372 

370 

72, 73, 120, 349-351, 372, 427 

420 

120, 371, 372, 374 

— 421 


Rails 

Rods 

Wire  rods 

Stereotype  plates.  _ 

Strychnine 

Sugar 

Sugar  of  lead 

Sugared  fruits 

Suspenders 

Sulphate  of  copper. 

Sundries 

Sumatra  tobacco . _ 
Swiss  mull 


361,  432, 474 

411 

__352, 353,  354,  371,  542 

223 

189,399 

127-135, 437, 514,  546-7 
T99 

210,  217,  539 

291, 323 

199,  256 

21 

- -166,507-509 

84,  495 


T. 


Table-covers 22,292 

Tagger’s  iron  and  tin 349, 350,  370, 371,  374, 377,  378, 381,  382, 387, 389,  390, 391 

Talc,  crude 196 

Talmas 323 

Tannin 194, 198, 199 


INDEX  TO  ARTICLES. 


657 


Page. 

Tarletans 84-87 

Tassels 21, 22, 291, 323 

Tea._ 458 

Threads 21,  67, 104-110, 490 

Tin  crystals 196 

Tin - 353, 414, 516 

Tin  plates 121, 352,  353, 371, 374,  376,  377,  380, 381, 383-392. 402, 460, 531 

Tobacco 166,  460, 506^509, 545-547 

Toilet  articles 20 

Toilet  powders 21 

Toluidine 538 

Tools,  carpenters’  and  other 422, 533 

Tooth-brushes 199, 204 

Toys 21, 117 

Tow , 105,489 

Trees  and  shrubs 460 

Trimmings 20, 21,  23,  46, 120, 291,  323 

Twines 104, 110, 490 


Ulsters 

Umbrellas * 

Underwear 

Unenumerated  articles. 
Upholstery  goods 


Varnish 

Vegetables: 

Canned 

Prepared 

Veilings 

Velvets 

Vitriol 


U. 


323 

T3~14, 21,50, 260 
21,  26, 76, 77,271 

184 

34, 35,  36, 62 


V. 

— 182 

— 210-212 

216 

60 

10, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,  25,  46 

194, 256, 413 


W. 


Walnuts — 539 

Watches _„21, 138, 139,  459 

Watch-guards 139 

Watch-materials 139 

Waters: 

Mineral 161 

Soda 502 

Wash-blue ' 177 

Waste — 230, 290, 291, 326 

Wearing  apparel 21, 45, 277,  318,  322, 442 

Webbings 21, 291, 296,  323, 517 

Whiting 194, 195 

Wines  and  spirits 162-164,  441, 462, 500-506, 545-7 

Wire-rods: 

Iron  354, 370, 542 

Steel 349,371,542 

Wood  screws 516 

Wool. -.22, 30, 45, 76,  111,  112, 116, 223-251, 253, 256-260, 262, 267, 269, 270-272-336,  437, 

470-476, 497, 499, 518 

Wool: 

Noils 290,291 

Waste , 230,290,291,326 

Woolen  manufactures 17,  20,  21,  22,  23,  31,  45,  46,  53, 116,  232-242,  249-252,  253 

254-259,  267-336,  432,  460,  470-476,  546,  547 

Woolen  rags 291 

Worsteds ^22,  23,  31,  32,  45,  260,  266,  271,  275,  294,  298,  300,  313,  322,  473,  517 

W orks  of  art 466,  470 

S,  Ex.  72 42 


658 


INDEX  TO  ARTICLES. 


Page. 

X. 

Xylidine 538 

Y. 

Yams 20,  21,  25,  31,  45,  67,  87,  89-94,  100,  103,  110,  259,  260,  270,  271,  274 

275,  277,  289,  290,  291,  294,  298,  300,  314,  322,  413,  477,  487,  488,  490 
Yellow  metal 414 

Z. 

Zinc 382,  414,  533 

Zinc,  oxide  of 195 


INDEX  TO  NAMES- 


A. 

Page. 

Abbott,  J.  H. , & Co.  Woolens  and  yarns 294 

Ahlborn,  Henry.  Bronze  powder 419,  420 

Aikin,  Walter.  Woolen  tariff 486 

Albany  Aniline  Company.  Coal-tar , dyes,  and  colors 534-538 

Amalgamated  Association  Iron  Workers  (Mahoning  lodge).  Iron  and  steel.  - 374 

Amalgamated  Association  Iron  Workers  (sub  lodges).  Iron  and  steel 377 

Amazon  Hosiery  Company.  Hosiery 296,  297 

American  Bronze  Powder  Manufacturing  Company _ 417 

American  Carpet  Manufacturers’  Asssociation 115,  116 

American  Cutlery  Company.  Cutlery 426 

American  Iron  and  Steel  Association.  Iron  and  steel 347,  374,  521 

American  Nickel  Works.  Nickel,  &e 412 

American  Pocket  Cutlery  Association.  Cutlery 423 

American  Tinned  Plate  Association.  Tin  plates-- ± 386 

American  Woolen  Company,  Barry  Mills.  Woolens 295 

Andres,  Jochams.  Iron  and  glass 521 

Arguimbau,  Joseph  L.  Fruits 539-541 

Arkwright  Club.  Cotton  goods 79,  80 

Arnold,  Constable  & Co.  Dry-goods 22 

Arnold,  Poliak  & Co.  Cigars 165 

Ashland  Coal  and  Iron  Railway  Company.  Pig-iron 407 

Auburn  Tool  Company.  Tools 422 


B. 


Bailey,  John  T.,  & Co.  Burlaps 94 

Ballerein  & Co.  Glass 143 

Baltimore  Iron  Company.  Pig-iron 408 

Barstow  & Whitelaw.  Chemicals 186 

Barrett;  L.  M.,  & Co.  Woolens 252 

Beach,  Charles  M.  Wool  and  woolens 278-290 

Beach  & Co.  Dye-stuffs,  woolens,  &c 255 

Beaver  Falls  Cutlery  Company.  Cutlery 426 

Belding  Bros.  & Co.  Silks . _ 1 

Bell,  Isaac,  United  States  minister  to  Netherlands.  Tobacco 508 

Belmont  Nail  Company.  Nails 373 

Biddle  Hardware  Company.  Cutlery 428 

Bierhoff,  Joseph.  Bronze  powder 419,  420 

BischofF,  Henry,  & Co.  liice 509 

Black,  Alexander.  Silks,  &c 39 

Black,  D.,  & Co.  Specific  duties 441 

Bolgiano,  J.,  & Sons.  Seeds 137 

Bolton,  Ogden.  Tool-steel 373 

Bower,  Henry.  Drugs  and  chemicals 179 

Bradley,  Thos.  W.  Cutlery 423 

Brewer,  J.  H.  Earthenware 155 

Brier  Hill  Iron  and  Coal  Company.  Metals 373 

Bridgeport  Knife  Company.  Cutlery 426 

Briggs,  Richard.  China  and  glass  ware 147 

Bringhurst,  J.  R.  Tagger's  iron 371 

British  Hosiery  Company.  Hosiery 497 

Brooke,  Horace  L.  Pig-iron 408 


659 


660 


INDEX  TO  NAMES. 


Page. 

Brussels  Tapestry  Company.  Upholstery  goods 62 

Bullock,  George.  Worsted  goods - 298 

Burt,  S.  W.  Oranges 213 

Burke,  John.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Burgess,  J.,  & Sons.  Tooth-brushes 199-203 

Byard,  W.  V.  Acids 196-197 

C. 

Cable  Flax  Mills.  Twines,  yarns,  &c 104 

Campbell,  D.  R.  Woolens 295 

Campbell,  Samuel.  Cotton  goods 83 

Canby,  Gilpin  & Co.  Tooth-brushes 203 

Carnegie,  Thomas  M.  Metals — 373 

Carpenaer,  John  N.  Woolens 322 

Carson,  W.  K.,  & Co.  Sugars 127 

Caswell,  Calvin.  Wool.  228 

Caswell,  M.  J.  Sheep  husbandry j. 229 

Catlin,  F.  H.  Cutlery 423 

Cazenovia  Woolen  Company.  Woolens 293 

Chase,  A.  B.  Tariff. 436,  437 

Chaffanjon,  Claude.  Silks 486,  487 

Charlottesville  Woolen  Mills.  Wool  and  woolens - ’ 253 

Chelsea  Jute  Mills.  Burlaps 95-98 

Cheney  Brothers.  Silks 486,  487 

Clarke,  Robert,  & Co.  Books ’ 218 

Cobb,  O.  P.  Nails 372 

Codman  & Hall.  Soaps,  oils,  &c 209 

Cole,  Jos.  E.  Tariff 436,  437 

Coleman,  E.  H.  Tapestry 63 

Coleman,  Mead  & Co.  Hosiery 68 

Colwell  Lead  Company.  Pig  lead 410 

Comstock,  R.  W.  Horseshoes 373 

Comly,  F.  A.  Pig-iron 407 

Commercial  Corporation  of  St.  Galle.  Embroideries 491, 494 

Conant,  Hezekiah.  Tariff 436,  437 

Conant  Thread  Company.  Spool  Cotton 87-89 

Conshohocken  Worsted  Mills.  Worsted 297 

Consul-General  United  States  at  Paris.  French  tariff 593 

Consul-General  United  States  at  Berlin.  German  tariff 639,  640 

Consul  United  States  at  Horgen.  Silks 55 

Consul  United  States  at  St.  Galle.  Embroideries 491-494 

Cook,  Richard  Y.  Silks,  gloves,  &c 68 

Cook,  C.  S.  Earthenware 155 

Cope,  George  W.  Metals 365 

Corliss,  George  H.  Tariff 436,  437 

Cowles,  James  L.  Cutlery 427 

Cowden,  W.  N.  Wool 228 

Coxe,  W.  E.  C.  Metals 365 

Cramer,  G.  Dry  plates 161 

Crawford,  Cree  & Co.  Wool 498 

Curtis,  Charles  B.  Works  of  art 466 

Cutler  Bros.  & Co.  Drugs  and  dyes 197 

Cutler,  C.  R.  Tariff 436,  437 

Cutter,  John  D.  Silks 9 


D. 

Dammann,  F.  W.  & E.  Woolens 254 

Davies,  David  L.  3fetals 377 

Day,  Horace  W.  Fruits 539-541 

Dean,  William.  Tariff,  woolens 470 

De  Barry,  F. , & Co.  Mineral  waters,  wines,  c fee 161, 162 

Deere  & Co.  Steel  plows 421 

De  Freycinet,  C.  French  tariff : 594 

Delano,  Columbus.  Wool,  tariff,  &c 228,  438 

De  Luyties,  F.  O.  Wines  and  liquors 503 


INDEX  TO  NAMES. 


661 


Page. 

Denton  & Cottier.  Musical  goods ~ - — . - - 141 

De  Pauw’s  American  Plate-Glass  Works.  Glass 158-161 

Dexter,  Lambert  & Co.  Silks 486,  487 

Dike  Brothers.  Wool 230 

Dodge,  J.  R.  Wool  statistics 249-251 

Dobson,  James.  Woolen  goods 322 

Dolan,  Thomas.  Woolen  goods 271,  322 

Dolge,  Alfred.  Piano  felt 260 

Donnelly,  J.  R.  Glass 144 

Dreer,  Henry  A.  Seeds,  &c 136 

Drown,  William  A.  Umbrella  silks 49 

Dulany,  Meyer  & Co.  Cigars,  wines , &c 163 

Du  Vivier,  C.  A.  Wines  and  liquors 503 


E. 

Eastern  Iron  Ore  Association.  Iron  ore 

Eastern  Pig-Iron  Association.  Pig-iron 

Eberle,  G.  A.  Linen  hose 

Eckert,  Henry  S.  Pig-iron 

Einstein,  David  L.  Woolens 

Ellis,  Knapp  & Co.  Umbrellas  and  parasols  __ 

Ely,  George  H.  Iron  ore 

Estes  & Lauriat.  Books 

Eureka  Fire  Hose  Company.  Linen  hose 

Evans,  Rodger.  Metals 

Everson,  Hammond  & Orr.  Metals 


392 

402,  407 
102 

403,  407 
252,  322 

14 

393 
222 

100-103 

377 

371 


F. 

Fairbanks,  Charles  F.  Carpets 

Fairchild,  C.  S.,  Assistant  Secretary  Treasury 

Far  well,  John  V.,  & Co.  Dry  goods 

Faulkner,  L.  W. , & Sons.  Woolens 

Felton,  Samuel  M.  Metals 

Field,  Marshall,  & Co.  Dry  goods 

Fitzgerald,  W.  N.  Carriages  and  harness 

Flesh,  A.  & D.  Trimmings,  &c 

Fletcher,  Charles.  Tariff 

Foreign  Fruit  Exchange  of  New  York  City.  Fruits 

Foulds,  Robert.  Toys 

Franke,  Louis  j & Co.  Silks 

Fraternity  Druggists’  Ware  Glass-Blowers’  League  of  the  United  States.  Glass 

bottles 

Friedrichs,  Robert.  Steel  rods , &c 

Frost,  Rufus  S.  Woolens 


115,  322 
368 
15 
294 
365 
20 
515 
120 
436,  437 
538-541 
117 
486,  487 

145 
411,  542 
322 


G. 

Gallagher  & Gilroy.  Beveled  glass - 

Galvey  & Cando.  Wines  and  liquors 

Gantz,  Jones  & Co.  Drugs  and  chemicals 

Gessaman,  George  D.  Metals 

Gibb,  John.  Embroideries 

Gibbons,  W.  G.  Iron  and  steel 

Gibson,  Parish  & Co.  Tariff 

Gilbert,  Leariet.  Woolen  goods 

Giles,  John  C.  Fruits 

Globe  Rolling  Mill  Company.  Metals 

Goldenburg,  Simon.  Embroideries 

Gonzenbach,  E.  Embroideries 

Goodell  Company.  Cutlery 

Gonzalez,  Byass  & Co.  Wines  and  liquors 

Graef,  Charles.  Wines  and  liquors 

Greef  & Co.  Silks,  specific  duties,  &c 

Greenwood,  James.  Metals 

Griffin,  Robert  S.  Tariff 


143 
503 
192 
377 
64,  65 
530 
440 
322 
539,  541 
373 
64 

494,  496 
426 
503 
503 
51 
373 
466,  466 


662 


INDEX  TO  NAMES. 


Page 

Griswold,  A.  B.,  & Co.  Watches  and  jewelry 138 

Grubb,  Joseph  C.,  & Co.  Fire-arms 429 

Gummey,  Spering,  Ingram  & Co.  Tin-plate 389 

II. 

Hanger,  C.  Embroideries 64 

Hague,  T.  O.  Carpets 114 

Hadley  Company.  Cotton  yarns  and  threads 92,  93 

Hall  & Carpenter.  Metals 386 

Haldeman,  Paris.  Metals 365 

Hamil  & Booth.  Silks 486,  487 

Hardy,  Alpheus  H. , & Co.  Fruits , &c 212 

Harper,  E.  L.,  & Co.  Pig-iron 409 

Harper  & Brothers.  Books,  &c 222 

Harpster,  David.  Wool 228,  229 

Hartley,  H.  A.,  & Company.  Carpets 113 

Hartman  Steel  Co.  Wire  rods 371 

Hardt  & Lindgens.  Silks 28 

Harter,  M.  D.  Iron  and  steel 530 

Harter,  Isaac.  Iron  and  steel 530 

Harrison,  Thomas  S.  Chemicals  and  drugs 179 

Harrison,  Havemeyer  & Co.  Sugar 129 

Hayes,  John  L.,  secretary  Wool  Manufacturers’  Association -322,  330,  339 

Hayes,  James  A.,  & Co.  Fruits,  &c 216,  217 

Hawkins,  Rush.  Works  of  art 469 

Healy&Co.  Cotton  goods „„„ 84,85 

Heller  & Merz.  Coal-tar , dyes,  and  colors 534-538 

Henderson,  Robert.  Fruits 539, 541 

Heydorf,  S.  H.  Glass 143 

Hills  Brothers.  Dried  fruits-- 209 

Hirsh,  J.  Embroideries 64 

Hodges  Brothers.  Undervaluations 61 

Hoe,  R.,  & Co.  Printing  machinery 421 

Hobson,  Frank  M.  Woolens 254 

Home  Woolen  Mills.  Woolens  and  worsteds 272-288 

Horswell  & French.  Woolens 265 

Houghton,  Mifflin  & Co.  Books 218-220 

Houston,  John  L.  Carpets 115,322 

Howe  & French.  Isinglass : 168 

Howard  Iron  Works.  Metals. -l - 370 

Hubler,  A.  W.  Metals J 374 

Hudson  River  Aniline  Color  Works.  Coal-tar , dyes , and  colors 534-538 

Hunt,  George  S. , & Co.  Sugar 129 


I. 


Indianapolis  Rolling  Mill  Company.  Iron  rails — 411 

Ingham,  William  A.  Pig-iron 407 

Iselin,  Neeser  & Co.  Silks 37 

Ivison,  Blakeman,  Taylor  & Co.  Steel  pens 420 

J. 

Jackson  & Kilpatrick.  Salt 345 

Jansen,  P.  Wool 498 

Jarrett,  John.  Tin-plate 389 

Jennings,  A.  G.,  & Son.  Silk,  laces,  &c 60 

Jenks,  Stephen  A.  Tariff 436,437 

John  Russell  Cutlery  Company.  Cutlery - — 425 

Johnson,  D.  J.  Cotton  goods : 81 

Johnson,  John.  Metals ' - 377 

Jonas,  B.  F.  Collector,  &c_. 138 

Jones,  A.  H.  Tariff 180 

Jones,  B.  F.  Metals 365 

Jones,  Aquilla.  Iron  rails - 411 

Jones,  Thomas  M.  Metals 377 

Jones,  Rees  L.  Metals ... r 377 


INDEX  TO  NAMES.  663 

Page. 

K. 

Keim,  de  B.  Randolph.  Pig-iron 403 

Kessler,  W.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Keystone  Mills.  Woolens 259 

Kirk,  James  S.,  & Co.  Alkalies 513 

Knight,  Robert.  Tariff 436,437 

Knight,  Horatio  G.  Buttons 118 

Koch  & Dreyfus.  Jewelry 139 

Koerner,  F.  Acids 193 

L. 

Lamont,  Daniel,  to  James  M.  Swank 370 

La  Montague,  E.  C.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Landon,  Charles  G.,  & Co.  Dry  goods 45 

Lanman  & Kemp.  Opium , oils,  tfc 183 

Landers,  Tracy  & Clark.  Cutlery 426 

Lasker,  M.  Irregularities 430 

Lauth,  Bernard.  Pig-iron 370 

Laughlin,  Samuel.  Metals 373 

Lawrence,  Myers  & Co.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Lawrence,  Charles  W.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Lees,  James  & Sons.  Woolens  and  yarns 295 

Leeson,  J.  R.,  & Co.  Linen  thread 106-110 

Lee,  Tweedy  & Co.  Drygoods 16-19 

Le  Gierse  & Co.  Undervaluation,  &c - 430 

Leslie  Iron  Works.  Steel  blooms - 520 

Linder  & Meyer.  Chemicals,  &c 192 

Little  Falls  Knitting  Mills  Company.  Knit  goods 76,  77 

Livingstone,  Lewis  M.  Bronze  powder 419,  420 

Lobdell  Car-Wheel  Company.  Car-wheels,  pig-iron,  &c 409 

Lobdell,  George  G.  Car-wheels,  &c 371 

Logan  Silk  Mills.  Silks 28 

Loeser,  Charles  McK.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Lord  & Hight.  Shooks 513 

Lowell  Manufacturing  Company.  Carpets , wool,  &c 110 

Lydon,  James.  Metals _.374,  376,  377 

Lyman,  Arthur  T.  Cotton  threads,  <&c 94,  112 

M. 

Mahoning  Lodge  Amalgamated  Association  Iron  Workers 374-376 

Mahoning  Valley  Iron  Company.  Metals 373 

Manuiacturing  Chemists’  Association  of  United  States.  Drugs  and  chemicals _ 171 

Manufacturing  Potters’  Association.  Earthenware 149 

Manufacturers  of  Rhode  Island.  Tariff  legislation 434 

Manufacturers  of  wool,  approval  by,  of  reply  of  Wool  Manufacturers’  Associ- 
ation   330,  336 

Marcy,  Fred.  L.  Tariff 436,  437 

Marchant,  H.  C.  Wool  and  woolens 253 

Marshall,  Brother  & Co.  Tagger’s  iron 370 

Marshal  Field  & Co.  Dry  goods 20 

Marshall  Iron  Company.  Sheet  iron 371 

Marvel,  W.  D.  Tariff , &c 443 

Masters,  William.  Clay  pipes 168 

Maxwell,  George.  Woolens .322 

Mayer,  Strouse  & Co.  Corsets 72 

Me  Adam,  Graham.  Iron  and  steel 530 

McCall,  W.  W.,  & J.  H.  Sheep  husbandry 229 

McCreery,  James  & Co.  Silks,  &c 24-27,291,489 

McCullagh,  S.  Wines  and  liquors ^ 503 

McCullough  Iron  Co.  Metals 370,  390 

McDaniel  & Harvey  Co.  Sheet-i ron 371 

McDowell,  Joseph  T.  Fruits «. 539,541 

McKean,  Borie  & Co.  Sugar 128 

McKeesport  Iron  Works.  Sheet-iron 378 

McKesson  & Robbins.  Drugs  and  chemicals 188 


664 


INDEX  TO  NAMES. 


Page. 

McHvaine,  Wm.  & Son.  Metals 1 370 

McNary,  J.  R.  Wool 1 225 

Means,  John.  Pig-iron , specific  duties 407 

Meriden  Cutlery  Company.  Cutlery 426 

Mermod  & J accard  J ewelry  Company.  Jewelry 138 

Merriman,  Chas.  H.  Woolens 269 

Metcalf,  H.  B.  Tariff 436-437 

Metcalf,  Wm.  Metals 365 

Meyer,  Bros.  & Co.  Medicines , wines , &c 441 

Michigan  Carbon  Works.  Chemicals * 207,209 

Miller  Brothers  Cutlery  Company.  Cutlery 422-424 

Miller,  John  H.  Iron  and  steel 530 

Miller,  Metcalf,  & Parkin.  Steel 372 

Monadnock  Mills.  Cotton  goods 83 

Moore,  A.  L.  Woolen  goods 260 

Morehead,  J.  B.  Metals 365 

Morehead,  J.  B.  & Co.  Pig-iron 400 

Moses,  James.  Earthenware 155 

Moses,  John.  Earthenware 155 

Moss,  Daniel.  Metals 377 

Muser,  Richard.  Embroideries 64 

My  rich,  Herbert.  Tobacco _ 506-508 

IV. 

National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers.  Wool,  manufactures  of  wool..  299-330, 

336,  470 

National  Tube  Works  Company.  Metals 373 

Naylor  & Co.  Metals 416 

New  England  Monument  Company.  Marble 122 

New  York  Belting  and  Packing  Company.  Linen  hose 102 

New  York  Knife  Company.  Cutlery 426 

Nichols,  Edward.  Pig-iron 407 

Nichols,  Henry  & Co.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Nichols  & Farnsworth.  Lastings,  &c ' 266 

Nicholson,  W.  T.  Tariff 436,  437 

Noblit,  Dell,  and  Joseph  C.  & Co.  Dry  goods 33 

Nordlinger,  E.  & J.  Damage  allowances 442 

Northampton  Cutlery  Company.  Cutlery 426 

Nye  & Wait.  Carpets 497 

O. 

Ogden  & Co.  Lumber J 344 

Ohio  Wool  Growers’  Association.  Wool 226,  230 

Osborn,  F.  P.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Osborne  & Cheeseman  Company.  Nickel 413 

Oteri,  S.  Green  fruit 139 

Ostheimer  Brothers.  Tariff 463 

P. 

Paillard,  M.  J.  & Co.  Musical  boxes 140,  141 

Parke,  Davis  & Co.  Menthol 205 

Parrot  & Co.  Burlaps 496 

Parsons,  Charles  H.  Fruits 539-541 

Passaic  Rolling  Mill  Company.  Metals 412 

Paulsen,  William.  Lead 410 

Pawling,  Levi.  Fruits 539-541 

Payson,  Samuel  R.  Woolens 322 

Pennsylvania  Salt  Manufacturing  Company.  Alkalies 184-186 

Perseverance  Worsted  Company.  Tariff  legislation 254 

Phelps,  Dodge  & Co.  Metals 380-382 

Phoenix  Manufacturing  Company.  Silks 486-487 

Philadelphia  Textile  Association.  Woolens 270 

Phipps,  Benjamin.  Woolens .... 322 

Pilling,  F.  A.  Tariff  reduction _ „ * J. ^ * 458 


INDEX  TO  NAMES. 


665 


Page. 

Pioneer  Silk  Company.  Silks 486-487 

Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  Company.  Glass 155-158 

Pollok,  Arnold  & Co.  Cigars 165 

Potts,  Benjamin  C.  Woolen  goods 267 

Pottstown  Iron  Company.  Pig-iron 402 

Pow,  John  Wool 228 

Powell,  Robert,  Hare,  Sons  & Co.  Metals 373 

Powers  & Weightman.  Drugs  and  chemicals 189 

Prime,  Frederick.  Pig-iron 407 

Pulaski,  M.  H.  & Co.  Embroideries 63 

Pullman,  J.  Wesley.  Pig-iron 407 

Purdy,  A.  B.  Wines  and  liquors 603 

R. 

Raritan  Woolen  Mills.  Woolens 252 

Read,  William  F.  Silks,  gloves,  &c 29, 477-485 

Redington,  L.  W.  Sugar 132 

Reeves,  David.  Metals 365 

Reeves,  G.  W.  & J.  W.  Chemicals 182 

Reilly,  William  A.  Cloaks,  &c 69 

Renauld,  Charles.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Rhode  Island  manufacturers.  Tariff  legislation 434 

Richardson,  B.,  & Son.  Silks 486-487 

Richmond,  F.  E.  Tariff. 436,  437 

Richmond,  F.  H.  Tariff 436,437 

Riever  & Kahn.  Glass 143 

Roberts,  Percival.  Metals 365 

Robinson,  Fred.  S.,  & Co.  Fruits 213,541 

Robinson,  Frederick  S.  Fruits 539-541 

Rockwell,  W.  F.  Cutlery 423 

Rogers,  Horatio.  Tariff ... 436,437 

Roebling,  John  A.’s  Sons.  Wire  rods 371 

Root  Manufacturing  Company.  Woolens 330 

Rose,  Wilton.  Fruit 539 

Rosengarten  & Sons.  Quinine,  &c 187 

Rothchilds  Bros.  & Co.  Buttons 119 

Rowland,  James  & Co.  Metals 373 

Rushville  Shawl  Mills.  Shawls 293 

Russell,  John,  Cutlery  Company.  Cutlery 425 

Russell  Manufacturing  Company.  Linen  hose 102 

Russell,  William.  Scotch  caps 77-78 

Ryle,  John.  Silks 3 

S. 

Samuels,  D.  Silks,  laces,  &c 47 

San  Francisco  Pioneer  Woolen  Factory.  Woolens 271 

Sargent,  J . B. , and  others.  Iron  and  steel 521 

Sauerwiene  & Co.  Glass 143 

Sawyer,  Joseph.  Woolens.. 322 

Sayles,  W.  F.  Tariff 436,  437 

Schmid  & Peters.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Schoellkopf,  J.  F.  Coal-tar  dyes  and  colors 534 

Schoellkopf  Aniline  and  Chemical  Company 534-538 

Schofield,  Mason  & Co.  Carpets 116 

Schriver,  Edward,  jr.  Iron  and  steel 530 

Schuster,  J.  Plate  glass 534 

Schuyler,  Eugene.  Currants 214-216 

Schwartzenbach,  Robert.  Silks 58 

Scovil  Manufacturing  Company.  Metals 414 

Seal,  W.  T.,  Secretary  Philadelphia  Textile  Association.  __ 271 

Seebass,  Oscar.  Silks 28 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury — 

To  Secretary  of  State _ . 490, 593 

To  Department  of  Agriculture 249 

To  James  M.  Swank ___ 366,367 


666 


INDEX  TO  NAMES. 


Page. 

Secretary  of  State  to  Secretary  of  Treasury 54,  491,  494, 508,  593, 639 

Shaw,  Alex.  D.  Wines  and  liquors ; 503 

Shearman,  Thomas  G.  Specific  and  advalorem  duties 431 

Sheldon  & Co.  Metals 373 

Sherburne,  R.  Glass 142 

Sherman,  Cecil,  & Co.  Cotton  goods . 86,  87 

Sibley,  Hiram,  & Co.  Seeds 135 

Siegel,  F..  & Brothers.  Made-up  garments 69 

Siegfried  & Brandenstein.  Mattings 116 

Simpson,  Hall,  Miller  & Co.  Metals 416 

Singerly,  Wiliam  M.  Tariff  legislation 437 

Slade,  Frederick  J.  Metals 365 

Sloane,  W.  & J.  Carpets 113 

Smith,  J.  Richard.  Buttons 119 

Smith  Township  Wool-Growers’ Association.  Wool . 223 

South  worth  Company.  Paper 220-222 

South  Mountain  Mining  and  Iron  Company.  Metals 370 

Spencer,  Chas.,  & Co.  Wool  and  woolens 253 

Spring  Valley  Woolen  Mills.  Woolens 252 

Standard  Hosiery  Mills.  Hosiery 296 

Stearns,  John  N.,  & Co.  Silks 486-487 

Stevenson,  J.  M.  Wool _ 225 

Stevens,  Timothy.  Wines  and  liquors 503 

Strange  & Brother.  Silks 8 

Strange,  William,  & Co.  Silks ___ 486,487 

Streuli,  H.  E.  Silks 59 

Sullivan  & Brother.  Hosiery , &c 66 

Sullivan,  Michael.  Metals 376, 377 

Sutter  Bros.  Tobacco 166 

Swank,  James  M.  Metals 365,  367,  368,  369 

T. 

Taft,  Edward  P.  Tariff — 436,  437 

Taft,  Royal  C.  Tariff 436,  437 

Thorne,  Peter  J.  Fruit 539-541 

Thurber,  Whyland  & Co.  Canned  goods 210-212 

Tichenor,  George  C.  Wool 232-249 

Tiemann,  Daniel  F.,  & Co.  Paints  and  colors 193 

Tingle,  A.  K.  Wool 232-249 

Tomlin,  F.  S.  Glass  bottles 145 

Todd,  S.  H.  Wool 228 

Townsend,  E.  Y.  Metals 365 

Treloar,  Joseph.  Wearing  apparel 442 

Tribbey,  J.  H.  Tariff 461 

Trick,  Wilkins.  Tinplates 383 

U. 

United  American  Clay  Tobacco  Pipe  Manufacturers’  Association.. — 166 

Upson  & Hart  Company.  Cutlery 426 

V. 

Valentine  & Co.  Varnishes 182 

Vassalboro,  Wollen  Mills.  Woolens 265 

Vermont  Marble  Company.  Marble 123-127 

Vick,  James.  Seeds,  &c 136 

Vinton,  Lindley.  Iron  and  steel 530 

Vogeley,  A.  Glass 143 

W. 

Wahl  Bros.  Glue - 122 

Wallace,  W.  H.  Metals 373 

Walrath,  R 76,77 

Walter,  Richard.  Silks 486-487 

Walton  & Leland.  Woolens 253 


INDEX  TO  NAMES. 


667 


Page. 

Ward,  Hill  & McClellan.  Stationery,  <&c 217 

Warner  Bros.  Corsets 73 

Weatherby,  Stevens  & Co.  Dry  goods 16 

Wernwag  & Dawson.  Silks 40-44 

West  Point  Foundry  Association.  Tariff 463 

Westervelt,  W.  H.  Fruits 539-541 

Wharton,  Joseph.  Metals 365,  413 

Wheeler,  Andrew.  Metals 365 

Wheeling  Nail  Manufacturer 374 

Whitaker,  N.  E.  Metals 373 

White,  L.  S.  Chemicals 179 

White,  J.  R.  Metals r 377 

Whiting,  John  L.,  &Son.  Brushes , &c 204 

Whitman,  William.  Wool  manufactures 322,  330,  470 

Whitney,  A.  R.,  & Co.  Hoop-iron 372 

Wilkin,  J.  M.  & S.  W.  Wool 230 

Willets,  Joseph.  Earthenware 155 

Wills,  Henry  T.  Fruits 539-541 

Williams,  John  D.  & M.  Wines  and  spirits 163 

Williams,  Thomas.  Metals 376,  377 

Wine  and  Spirit  Traders’  Society  of  the  United  States.  Wines  and  liquors __  500-506 

Witherbee,  Frank  S.  Pig  iron  and  ore 393,  407 

Wolff  & Rheinhold.  Glass  bottles,  &c ...  146,147 

Wood,  William  W.  Steel  blooms 370 

Wool  manufacturers.  Circular  letters  from 330,336 

Wright  Bros.  & Co.  Silks  and  umbrellas 13 

Wright,  Peter,  & Sons.  Earthenware,  &c 121,  457 

X. 


Zahn,  Jacob.  Glass 


143 


INDEX  TO  SUBJECTS, 


A. 

Page. 

Administrative  reforms  suggested 16, 17, 20, 23, 37, 45,  47, 57, 60, 63, 68, 69, 102, 105, 

120, 121, 128, 134, 145, 148, 157, 158, 182, 183, 184, 188, 231, 321,  336,  344, 
365,  381,  416,  430,  434,  436,  446,  458,  465,  486,  496,  501,  502,  506,  507,  517 
Administration  customs.  (See  1 1 Customs  administration.  ’ ’ ) 

Adulterated  goods 6, 11,  24,  28,  29,  30,  48,  54, 134,  383,  441,  477,  500,  537 

Advalorem  duties  preferred 14, 16,  33,  36,  39, 63,  68, 84, 86, 94, 113, 114, 117, 119, 121, 

122, 136, 138, 147, 162, 182, 193, 204, 218, 220, 
274, 410, 416, 421, 425,  428,  431,437, 449,  516 
Advalorem  equivalents  of  specific  duties  under  existing  United  States  tariff, 


based  on  importations  in  1884 550-592 

Advalorem  equivalents  of  specific  duties  under  French  tariff 593-638 

Advalorem  equivalents  of  specific  duties  under  German  tariff 639-648 

Ambiguities,  tariff.  (See  “ Tariff  ambiguities  and  incongruities.”) 

American  industry,  promotion  of 544 

Anti-moiety  act 295,  321,  337,  436 


uiloCillCll L,  lllv lilUvlij  U1  — — - — — — — — — lUj  /wvj  kjkj ^ “Uj  TO.  t/Uj  rJOj  Utlj  < Oj  lvU^  XUUj  lOl/^  1 OO j 

201, 272,  417, 442,  446,  465,  480-481, 517 
Appraisers,  merchant.  (See  “Merchant  appraisers.”) 

Appropriations 456,  544-548 

Average  rates  of  duty  under  French  tariff 629 


B 

Bonds,  custom-house 

Bribery  of  customs  officials 


184,501 

16, 27,  66, 104,  430, 473 


Capital  invested  in  plant,  &c 2,  60,  73,  88,  90,  97,  106,  109,  112,  149,  155,  169,  173, 

207,  221,  261,  264,  267,  268,  275,  277,  293,  294,  298,  304,  360, 

372,  397,  400,  405,  407,  413,  415,  435,  498,  517,  629,  535,  537 

Charges,  packing  &c 118,  121,  141,  142,  146,  147,  148,  154,  213,  230,  243,  310 

Charitable  donations 442 

Chemical  production  of  United  States 173 

Circular  of  N ational  Association  W ool  Manufacturers 330 

Circular  replies  to  same 330-336 

Classification  of  imports 7,  12,  20,  34,  37,  52,  78,  107,  119,  125,  137, 

177,  201,  217,  242,  447,  457,  516,  550-592 

Compound  duties  recommended 3,  7,  13,  22,  23,  45,  87,  113,  115,  116,  252,  253,  254, 

255,  265,  269,  270,  294,  295,  296,  310,  330-336,  441 

Consignments  on  foreign  account 5, 13, 15, 17,  22,  23.  24,  29,  30,  33,  35,  46,  54, 

60, 61,  62, 68, 69, 70,  72,  75, 100,  110,  136,  186,  208,  209, 
217,  255,  258,  265,  269,  419,  423,  434,  457,  464,  479,  535 

Consular  experts 54-58 

Consular  invoices  and  certificate-23,  27,  69, 105, 123, 148, 163, 184,  381,  417,  446,  502,  517 
Corruption,  official-1, 16,  27,  47,  48,  66, 104, 105, 128, 134, 157, 180, 231,  416,  430,  449,  473 
Cost  of  production: 

Aniline  dyes  and  colors _ 535-537 

Burlaps 97 

Bronze  powder 418 

Carriages 518 

Clay  pipes 167 

Coal-tar  dyes  and  colors 535-537 

Cotton  thread  and  yarns 88-89 

Cotton  cloth 82 

Corsets 74 


669 


670 


INDEX  TO  SUBJECTS. 


Cost  of  prodnction--Contmued. 

Cutlery 

Earthenware 

Flax 

Flax  hose 

Iron  and  steel 

Iron  ore 

Isinglass 

Linen  thread 

Paper 

Piano-felt 

Pig-iron 

Plate-glass 

Rice 

Scotch  caps 

Silk  manufacture. 

Shawls 

Tin-plates 

Tooth-brushes 

Twine 

Wool 

Woolen  goods 

Worsted  goods 


Pago. 


—  423, 424, 425, 426 

149 

105 

101 

356-360, 368, 372, 375, 499, 523-526 

397, 526 

169 

109 

220-222 

263,264 

.401,403, 405, 408,  455, 523-526, 531 
155, 159, 160 

—  512 

78 


1,3,38,41 

293 

384, 388 

202,203 

106 

226-230 

31, 275, 298,  309, 323, 325 
31, 298 


Customs-administration 1,  4,  5, 6, 16, 17, 20, 23,  34, 35, 37, 39, 40,  46, 47,  51,  54, 56, 

60,  61, 63,  68,  76,  78,  96, 104,  105,  106,  110,  117,  120,  121,  122,  125,  126,  128, 132, 
134,  136,  137,  145,  157,  158, 162,  172,  179,  182,  183,  188,  226,  231,  242,  268,  294, 
297,  311,  321,  336,  349,  380,  416,  417,  422,  428,  430,  433,  434,  437,  445,  448,  458, 
463,  473,  486,  487 


Customs  court 179,  338, 340 

Custom-house  bonds 184,  501 


D. 

Damage  allowances 61,  118, 146, 157, 158, 163,  212,  442 

Department  decisions 137, 183,  217,  231,  242,  447 


Direct  taxation 443 

Domestic  industry,  promotion  of 544 

Drawbacks 14, 134, 158 

Duties,  advalorem.  {See  “Advalorem  duties.”) 

Compound.  {See  “Compound  duties.”) 

Specific.  {See  “Specific  duties.”) 

Advalorem  equivalents  of  specific  under  French  tariff 593-638 

Advalorem  equivalents  of  specific  under  tariff  of  German  Empire 639-648 

Average  rates  under  French  tariff ^ 629 

Based  on  cost  of  labor 435,  465,  466 

Collected  on  goods  entered  for  consumption  during  fiscal  year  1884 550-592 

{See  “Evasion  of  duties.”) 


Changes  in  rates  recommended  .7,  20, 21,22,  23,  30,36, 45, 67, 73,75,  77, 96,  98,102,108, 
117, 122,  125,  130,  131,  140,  143,  144,  147,  164,  165,  166,  168, 170,  177,  178, 
184,  200,  208,  209,  210,  216,  220,  266,  271,  288,  289,  290,  291,  292,  322,  350, 
354,  370,  371,  372,  374,  377,  382,  385,  389-391,  402,  406,  408,  409,  412,  413, 
418,  420,  423,  429,  450,  458,  477,  484,  488,  495,  502,  520,  534,  537,  539-542 
{See  “Reduction  of  duties.”) 

Dutiable  merchandise,  quantities,  values,  &c.,  of,  entered  for  consumption  in 

United  States  during  fiscal  year  1884 550-592 


Entries,  liquidation  of 23,446 

Evasion  ofduties 1 , 4,  8,  9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 35, 39,45,46, 48,  49, 50, 51, 

53,  56,  57,  60,  61,  62,  66,  68,  69,  70,  72,  76,  78,  95,  100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 110, 113, 
116, 118, 121, 123. 124, 125, 128, 132, 134, 135, 136, 141, 142, 147,-149, 154, 157, 158, 
161.  163, 164,  166, 168, 170, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186, 197, 199,  201,  203, 205,  208,  209, 
212;  213,  216, 218,  223,  226,  230,  231,  236,  239,  242, 243,  244,  255,  257,  258, 265,  267, 
268,  270,  272,  277,  296.  297,  3,10,  321,337,  339,  349,351,  370,372,  378,  389,  390,  391, 
394,406,  408,  409,  413,  416,  417,  118,  420,  421, 423,  425,  426,  428,  430,  433,  434,  440, 
442,  445,  452.  457,  464,  473,  478,  480,  485,  491,  496,  499,  500,  506,  509,  510,  516,  535 
Experts,  consular.  {See  “Consular  experts.”) 


INDEX  TO  SUBJECTS. 


671 

Page. 


F. 

Failure  of  manufacturers  to  furnish  information  in  reply  to  Department  cir- 


cular  348,522 

Federal  taxation,  reduction  of ^ 544-549 

Fees,  custom-house 23, 185,  381,  502 


Foreign  trade 15,  70,  81, 118, 181. 185, 186,  221,  259, 268,  288,  347, 364, 402, 421, 427, 

440,  451,  462,  472,  474,  475,  476,  513,  514,  519,  529,  533 
Foreign  manufacturers,  advantages  of  __31, 171, 191, 196,  200, 243, 257, 258, 260, 261,  267, 

273, 274,  277,  304,  305,  419,  513,  519,  526,  536 

France: 

General  tariff  of 593-638 

Average  rates  of  duty  under  tariff  of 629 

French,  general  tariff,  index  of 630-638 

Freelist,  enlargement  off. 84, 112,  136, 142, 192, 193, 197, 207,  209,  213,  215, 223,  259,  268, 
345,  422, 443,  459, 461,  462,  469,  470, 513, 516, 528, 537, 538,  539-542, 549-592 
Free  raw  materials.  (See  “Eaw  materials,  free.”) 

Free  ships _ — - .427, 476, 520 

Freights.  (See  ‘ ‘ Transportation.  ’ ’ ) 


G. 


German  tariff,  ad  valorem  equivalents  of  specific  duties  under 639-648 

Goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  dutiable,  entered  for  consumption  in  United 
States  during  fiscal  year  1884 550-592 


H. 

Home  valuations 5,  84,  256,  257,  269,  272,  288,  290,  372 

Home  trade.  (See  1 1 Trade,  home.  ’ ’ ) 


I. 

Immigration,  pauper 221 

Importations,  dutiable,  entered  for  consumption  in  the  United  States  during 

fiscal  year  1884 550-592 

Imports.  (See  “Classification  of  imports.”) 

Incongruities  and  ambiguities  of  tariff.  (See  ‘ ‘ Tariff  incongruities  and  ambi- 
guities.”) 

Index  of  French  tariff 630-638 

Industry,  domestic,  promotion  of 544 

Inequalities  and  discriminations  of  the  tariff.  (See  “ Tariff  inequalities  and 
discriminations.  ’ ’ ) 

Information,  refusal  of  manufacturers  to  furnish 348,  373,  374,  412,  522 

Information,  efforts  to  secure 348,  367-369,  390 


Interest 78,  90,  97,  109,  153,  170,  264,  275,  304,  360,  405,  421,  435,  517,  536 

Internal  revenue 83,  164,  177,  185,  189,  364,  501,  502,  545,  546 

L. 

Labor 2,  3,  32,  38,  41,  70,  74,  76,  81,  82,  88,  89,  90,  97,  104,  106,  109,  112, 


122,  124,  144,  149,  155,  157,  159,  160,  167,  169,  176,  181,  185,  200,  201,  203, 

221,  228,  229,  262,  263,  264,  267,  272,  278,  298,  356-359,  377,  380,  383,  386, 

392,  393,  395,  397,  398,  400,  402,  405,  407,  409,  418,  421,  423,  425,  427,  435, 

439,  453,  454,  455,  472,  474,  512,  515,  517,  518,  519,  524,  529,  534,  535 


Limitations,  statute  of _ 449 

Liquidation  of  entries 23,  446 


M, 

Machinery  used  in  manufactures 3,  88,  102,  109,  111,  156,  169,  261,  267,  268, 

275  277  298  535 

Manufacturers’  profit 41,  85,  90,  95,  112,  159,  160,  221,  261,  276,  293,  298,  422,’ 521, 

526,  536 

Manufacturers,  refusal  of,  to  furnish  information 169,  348,  373,  374,  522 

Manufacturers  of  wool,  approving  reply  of  National  Wool  Manufacturers’ 

Association .... 330-336 


672 


INDEX  TO  SUBJECTS. 


Page. 

Manufacturers  of  wool,  disapproval  of  above  reply 470-476,  486 

Manufacturers,  foreign.  ( See  1 ‘ Foreign  manufacturers,  advantages  of.  ” ) 

Market  value 5,  28,  32,  33,  40,  52,  56,  63,  66,  68,  76,  100,  102,  137,  171,  188,  205, 

210,  258,  265,  380,  446,  464,  480,  496,  499 
Merchandise,  dutiable,  quantities,  values,  &c. , of,  imported  during  fiscal  year 

1884 550-592 

Merchant  appraisers  . 48,  63,  465,  480 

Moiety  law.  (See  “ Anti-moiety  act.”) 

N. 

Naval  officer,  abolishment  of  office.  458 

Navigation  laws ... 268,515 

O. 

Oaths  and  fees 23, 52, 54, 143, 163, 184, 381, 501 

Official  corruption.  (See  “Corruption,  official.”) 

P. 

Pauper  immigration 221 

Penalties 17, 20, 23,  34, 40, 45,  61, 121, 188, 257, 321, 338, 340, 386, 416,  445, 457 

Production,  cost  of.  (See  “Cost  of  production.”) 

Profit,  manufacturers’.  (See  “Manufacturers’  profit.”) 

Promotion  of  American  industry 544 

Protection,  results  of 57,  70,  81,  83,  90, 100, 112, 142, 153, 154, 

158, 159, 171, 176, 184,  221,  254,  258,  259,  261,  262,  274, 278,  346,  360,  362,  379, 
399,  427,  428,  438,  450-452,  462,  471-474,  486,  498,  512,  519,  522,  527-29. 

Protests  against  tariff  changes 115, 116,  293, 294-296, 303,  330-336 

Protests  and  appeals 119, 120 


R. 

Rates  and  amounts  of  duty  collected  on  imports  entered  for  consumption  in 

the  United  States  during  fiscal  year  1884 550-592 

Raw  materials  free 15,  22,  30,  45,  71,  76,  81,  82,  97,  102,  108,  109,  111,  112, 117, 

161,  181, 183,  193, 194 ,198,  205,  258,  259,  261,  262, 268,  269,  272,  274,  288,  294,  298, 
304,  396,  427,  437,  449,  457,  458,  472,  486,  489,  497,  513,  516,  528,  532,  535,  537,  538 

Reappraisements 11,  56,  61,  188,  465,  481 

Reduction  of  duties  suggested 16,  20,  22,  32,  36,  38,  41,  51,  56,  57,  72, 82,  84,  85,  86, 

112, 114,  117, 119,  120,  129,  134-136, 139,  140-142,  146,  147,  162,  163,  177, 
183,  188,  192,  193,  196, 198,  206,  209,  210,  213,  214,  216,  223,  256,  259,  265, 
268,  269,  277,  278,  344,  345,  381,  382,  390,  410,  411,  413,  417,  420,  422,  427, 
431,  433,  446,  449,  457,  459-461,  462-459,  469-470,  473,  474,  486,  489,  492, 
497,  502,  512,  513,  516,  521-529,  531,  539-542,  544-592 

Reduction  of  duties  opposed 83,  88,  90,  91,  92, 110, 124, 154, 156,  159, 178, 185, 189, 

205,  254,  293, 294.  295,  296,  300,  301,  362,  363,  378,  392,  393,  399, 
401,  402,  407,  409,  422,  426,  428,  436,  439,  497,  498,  537 

Reduction  of  Federal  taxation 544-549 

Revenue,  surplus,  disposition  of 364, 421,  544-549 

Revision  of  tariff.  (See  “ Tariff  revision.”) 

Samples  of  merchandise 3, 23,  50,  76,  79,  86,  87,  89,  97,  222, 252,  420 

Schedules,  tariff.  (See  “ Tariff  scehedules  proposed.”) 

Sheep  husbandry 76, 224, 230,  232,  244, 249-251,  269, 276, 294, 306, 471,  498 

Ships,  free 427,  476, 520 

Similitude  clause  (Sec.  2499  R.  S.) - 179 

Special  agents,  Treasury  Department 40,  52, 55, 175,  449 

Specific  duties  favored 2, 3, 8,  9, 11, 15, 16,  20, 24,  26, 27, 28,  29,  37,  40,  46,  47,  49, 

51,  60,  63,  64,  66,  72,  73,  76,  83,  92,  95,  99, 100, 102, 106, 110, 116,  118, 121, 122, 
123, 127, 129, 132, 135.  137, 139, 140,  141, 142, 146, 156, 158,  163, 165, 166, 168, 
170, 182, 183, 184, 186,  188, 192,  197, 199,  200,  204,  206,  207, 209,  210, 212,  213, 
216,  217, 218,  222, 223, 226,  254, 255,  266,  271,  291,  297,  344,  348,  370,  371,  372, 
375,  377,  378,  380,  383,  386,  389,  390,  392,  400,  402,  406,  407,  409,  411,  413,  410, 
418,  420,  423,  429,  430,  434,  440,  441,  442,  458,  463,  478-485,  487,  489,491-496, 

500,  535,  537,  539, 54Q 


INDEX  TO  SUBJECTS. 


673 


Page. 

Specific  duties  and  ad  valorem  equivalents  under  French  tariff 593-638 

Specific  duties  and  ad  valorem  equivalents  under  German  tariff 639-648 

Statute  of  limitations 449 

Subsidies  American  ships 421 

Surplus  revenue,  disposition  of 364,  421,  544-592 

Surveyor  of  customs,  abolishment  of  office  of 458 


T. 


Tariff  acts,  when  should  take  effect 288,  463 

Tariff  agitation  deprecated 15,  82, 154, 185,  204,  226,  231,  253,  254,  271,  293,  295,  300, 

301,  302,  363,  365,  399,  407,  428,  436,  438,  463,  498 

Tariff  ambiguities  and  incongruities 20,  24, 107, 120, 124, 128, 135,  137,  147,  148, 164, 

183,  184, 197,  198, 212,  213,  216, 217,  242, 294, 
* 314,  411  ,.417,  418,  427,  447,  488,  510,  516,  543 

Tariff  commissions  proposed 51,  53,  114,  464 

Tariff,  French 593-638 

Tariff,  German 639-648 

Tariff  inequalities  and  discriminations 7,  14, 15,  18,  19,  23,  31,  36,  46,  48,  51,  62,  66, 

68,  69, 70,  72,  73,  75, 78,  81,  84,  85,  86,  91,  102, 105, 106, 114, 118, 120, 128, 129, 
133, 135, 137, 143,  144,  145,  156, 165,  178, 184,  185,  189,  191,  196, 197, 198, 200, 
201,  204,  207,  210,  217,  222,  226,  242,  243,  257, 259,  260,  262, 267,  268,  269,  273- 
275,  294,  309,  310,  315,  316,  319.  346,  351, 374,  376,  378,  380,  386,  390,  391,  41)6, 
410,  411,  417,  418,  420,  432,  437,  443,  447, 457,  473,  511,  513,  516,  517,  520,  534, 

541-543 


Tariff  revision  favored 1,  3-8,  9, 13, 15, 16,  20, 22,  24, 28, 29,  33,  37,  40, 

45, 46,  47,  49,  51,  56,  58,  60,  61,  62,  64,  66,  68,  69,  71, 72, 75-78,  81,  84, 
86,  96, 100, 104,  106, 110,  113,  114,  116,  117,  119,  120,  122-124,  127, 
129, 132, 135-137, 140-147, 161-167, 170, 177, 182-184, 186, 188, 190, 
192, 193, 196, 197,  200,  204, 206,  208-210,  212,  213, 216,  217,  222, 224, 
226, 254, 259, 260, 263,  265,  266,  268, 269, 271, 272-278,  291,298, 341, 
345, 370,  371,  374,  376,  377,  378,  380,  383,  386,  389,  391,  402,  410,  411, 
419,  420,  427, 433,  437,  442,  446,  457,  459,  462,  474,  478,  486,  489,  496, 
502,  507,  511,  513,  514,  516,  526-533,  535,  539-542,  544-592 

Tariff  revision  opposed 15, 16, 79,  83, 88,  91, 92, 115, 116, 154, 156, 159,  185, 

204,  213,  226,  231,  252,  253,  254, 255, 270,293-297,  299-302,  330-336, 
362-365,  370,  373,  378,  399,  412,  428,  436,  437, 439,  463,  468,  497,  498 

Tariffs  on  wool  and  woolens,  history  of 232-244,  313 

Tariff  schedules  proposed: 


Ale  and  beer 

Bags  and  bagging _ _ 

Burlaps 

Bottles 

Books 

Carpets 

Chemicals 

Clothing 

Coal  tar,  dyes,  and  colors 

Corsets 

Cotton  goods 

Cutlery 

Dried  fruits 

Dry  goods 

Dye-stuffs 

Embroideries 

Fire-arms 

Flax,  jute,  hemp,  &c 

Glass,  beveled  plate 

Gloves 

Green  fruits 

Hosiery.  

Knit  underwear 

Laces 


502 

497 

96,98,497 

147 

220 

21,  23,  292,  323 

---192, 198-199,  208 

20,45,322 

537 

75 

20,22, 45, 495 

424 

210, 539 

23 

255 

25,65,495 

429 

489 

534 

21,23, 26,  45,  67,  484 

539-540 

20,  26, 67,  77 

20,  26, 77, 292 

25, 495 


Lastings  and  serges 266 

Linens 21,22,489 

Liquors,  &c 502 


674  INDEX  TO  SUBJECTS. 

Page. 

Tariff  schedules  proposed — Continued. 

Marble  • 125 

Matting 117 

Metals _vl - 381-382 

Musical  boxes 140 

Nuts 539-540 

Piano  felt 263 

Pig-iron 406 

Preserved  fruits 539 

Provisions + 216 

Plushes 25,  36 

Eice - 511 

Sheet-iron 391 

Silks 9,  13,  21,  23,  24,  25,  37,  40,  42,  45,  53,  58,  477,  486,  487,  488 

Sugar * 130,131 

Sundries • 21 

Thread . 67, 108,  490 

Tin-plate _385, 389, 390, 392 

Tobacco 509 

Toilet  articles 21 

Tooth-brushes 202 

Upholstery  goods 36 

Velvets 23,25 

Wines  and  liquors 502 

Wool  22  45  225  290  291 

Wool,  manufactures  of 20,  21,  22,  45,  271,' 288,  289,  29o’,  291,  292’  322 

Yarns „ 20,  67,  108,  290-291,  490 

Various  articles : 550-592 

Tariff  system,  simplification  of 544-592 

Taxation: 

Direct . 443 

P’ederal 544-549 

Local 111,  221,  298,  416 

Taxes,  internal  revenue.  ( See  “Internal  revenue.”) 

Trade,  home 70,  181,  185,  190,  228,  304,  400,  439,  474,  518 

Trade,  foreign.  ( See  “Foreign trade.”) 

Transportation : 153,  156,  221,  267,  268,  345,  355, 

358,  359,  362,  397,  402,  406,  415,  421,  437,  458,  476,  502,  519,  523,  525 
Treaties 132,  213,  456,  475,  520 


U. 

U ndervaluation : 

References  to 1,  3,  4,  8,  9,  11-16, 17,  20-24,  27,  29,  33,  34,  39,  45,  46, 

48,  49,  51,  60,  61,  66,  69,  77,  78,  95, 100, 102, 110, 116, 118, 123, 124, 135, 138, 
139, 140, 149, 164, 166-168, 182, 183, 203, 205, 209, 216, 218, 223, 226, 231,  242, 
244,  255, 257,  258,  265, 269, 270-272, 277,  296,  310,  321,  337,  339,  349,  370-372, 
378,  389,  390,  394,  406,  408,  409,  413,  416,  420,  421,  423,  425.  428-430,  433,  434. 
440,  441,  442,  445,  453/457,  464,  473,  478, 480,  487,  491-516',  535. 


Benefits  of_^ 433 

Remedies  for •_ 17,  60,  188,  337,  433,  436,  446 


V. 


Valuations,  fixed 62,  433,  445 

Valuations  at  port  of  entry 5,  54,  256,  257,  269,  272,  288,  290,  372 

Values,  dutiable 5,  32,  40,  46,  47,  62,  66, 75, 102, 171, 186, 188,  265,  380,  457,  464,  499 

(See  also  “ Market  value.”) 

Value,  description  and  quantities  of  dutiable  imports  entered  for  consump- 
tion in  United  States  during  fiscal  year  1884 550-592 

Wages 2, 3, 38, 88-90, 97, 109,  111,  112, 144, 149, 155, 157, 159, 160, 167-169, 

176, 181, 183, 185,  201-203, 208,  220,  221,  229,  230, 2tf3, 264, 267.  272, 
278, 297,  298,  310,  358,  359,  375,  379,  388,  393,  395, 405,  406, 408, 415, 
418,  422,  423, 425,  427,  454, 474,  498,  517,  518,  519,  521,  524-529,  535 
C See  also  “Labor.”) 


INDEX  TO  SUBJECTS. 


675 


w. 

Page. 

Warehouse  system 179, 186, 501, 503-506 

Wool : 

Cost  of  production  of 227, 230 

Domestic,  prices  of . 224, 227, 232, 249,  251 

Domestic,  production  of 224, 231, 232, 235, 237, 238, 241, 250, 294 

Exports  of -_-l : 233 

Foreign  cost  of. 30, 246-248, 273, 279-287, 325-328, 499 

Imports  of 233,  239,  241, 245,  251 

Tariff  acts  relating  to 232-244 

Wool  manufacturers : 

Approval  of  reply  of  National  Wool  Manufacturers’  Association  to  circu- 
lar of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 330-336,  497 

Disapproval  of  above  reply 470-476,  486 


